Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

Full text of "Official report of debates (Hansard) : Legislative Assembly of Ontario = Journal des débats (Hansard) : Assemblée législative de l'Ontario 1974"

See other formats


No.  1 


Ontario 


Eegiglature  of  Ontario 


OFFICIAL  REPORT  —  DAILY  EDITION 
Fourth  Session  of  the  Twenty-Ninth  Legislature 


Tuesday,  March  5,  1974 

Afternoon  Session 


Speaker:  Honourable  Allan  Edward  Renter 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 
PARLIAMENT  BUILDINGS,  TORONTO 

1974 


10 


Price  per  session,  $10.00.  Address,  Clerk  of  the  House,  Parliament  Bldgs.,  Toronto 


CONTENTS 


(Daily  index  of  proceedings  appears  at  back  of  this  issue.) 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


Tuesday,  March  5,  1974,  being  the  first  day  of  the  fourth  session  of  the  29th  Parliament 
of  the  Province  of  Ontario,  for  the  despatch  of  business  pursuant  to  a  proclamation  of  the 
Honourable  W.  Ross  Macdonald,  Lieutenant  Governor  of  the  Province. 


The  House  met  at  3  o'clock,  p.m. 

The  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor, 
having  entered  the  House  and  being  seated 
upon  the  throne,  was  pleased  to  open  the 
session  with  the  following  gracious  speech. 


SPEECH  FROM  THE  THRONE 

Hon.  W.  Ross  Macdonald  (Lieutenant  Gov- 
ernor): Pray  be  seated. 

Mr.  Speaker  and  members  of  the  legislative 
assembly,  on  behalf  of  our  Sovereign,  I  wel- 
come you  to  the  opening  of  the  fourth  session 
of  the  29th  Parliament  of  Ontario. 

As  hon.  members  were  reminded  earlier 
today,  continued  improvement  in  the  prosper- 
ity of  our  province  was  slowed  to  some  extent 
last  year  by  inflation. 

In  1974,  the  economy  of  Ontario,  as  with 
most  of  the  major  economies  of  the  world,  is 
faced  with  uncertainties  of  the  real  and  poten- 
tal  impact  of  the  energy  situation.  In  my 
government's  view,  however,  the  prospects 
appear  more  favourable  here  than  elsewhere. 
Despite  projections  of  slower  economic 
growth  this  year,  combined  with  the  con- 
tinued rapid  growth  of  the  province's  labour 
force,  it  is  still  hoped  that  the  level  of  em- 
ployment achieved  in  1973,  which  produced 
a  record  of  149,000  new  jobs,  will  be  main- 
tained. 

[While  my  government  will  employ  all 
practical  means  at  its  disposal  to  alleviate  the 
causes  and  effects  of  inflation,  nevertheless  it 
bears  repeating  that  the  problem  can  only 
be  dealt  with  in  a  national  context,  with  all 
governments  co-operating. 

[In  recognition  of  the  fact  that  science, 
research  and  innovation  play  such  an  important 
role  in  an  advanced  and  diversified  economy, 
the  government  of  Ontario  will  establish  struc- 
tures to  develop  and  co-ordinate  science  policy, 
both  within  our  province  and  in  co-operation 
with  the   government   of   Canada  and  other 


TxJESDAY,  March  5,  1974 

provinces.  Strong  emphasis  will  be  placed  on 
the  practical  application  of  science  to  main- 
tain our  leadership  in  high-technology  in- 
dustry. This  is  a  key  component  in  my  gov- 
ernment's efforts  to  preserve  our  national 
economic  independence  and  to  ensure  that 
maximum  social  benefits  are  achieved. 

[A  comprehensive  programme  to  improve 
essential  services  in  remote  areas  of  the  prov- 
ince will  be  introduced.  This  will  include 
an  extension  of  the  electrification  process, 
and  improved  telecommunications,  especially 
for  emergency  purposes.] 

Improvements  in  telephone  and  communi- 
cations systems  in  remote  areas  will  benefit 
the  residents  and  provide  a  firmer  base  for 
economic  development.  The  co-operation  of 
the  federal  government  and  of  industry  will 
be  sought  to  develop  reliable  communications 
systems  for  the  north. 

A  feasibility  and  engineering  study  will  be 
undertaken  for  a  road  link  to  James  Bay 
through  Moosonee.  This  will  include  an  en- 
vironmental impact  study  and  full  public 
hearings. 

Priority  consideration  will  be  given  to  the 
supply  of  electric  power  to  northern  com- 
munities. A  power  line  to  Moosonee  will  be 
the  first  project  in  this  undertaking. 

Northern  communities  in  unorganized  terri- 
tories will,  through  enabling  legislation,  have 
the  opportunity  to  establish  local  coromunity 
councils.  Fire  protection,  water,  roads  and 
other  such  services  wfll  become  the  respon- 
sibility of  these  community  councils.  Imple- 
mentation of  this  plan  will  follow  fuU  con- 
sultation with  residents  of  commimities  that 
wish  to  participate. 

[In  recognition  of  the  fact  that  the  north, 
with  its  great  distances,  requires  a  first-rate 
highway  system,  high  priority  has  been  given 
to  rebuilding  and  widening  Highway  17  be- 
tween Sault  Ste.  Marie  and  Sudbury. 

[Following  the  success  of  norOntair,  four 
more    communities    in   northwestern   Ontario 


[Editor's  Note:  Copy  within  brackets  was  not  read  but  is  contained  in  the  formal  Throne  Speech.] 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


will  receive  air  services  in  the  first  phase  of 
an  expansion  programme.  In  addition,  funds 
will  be  made  available  for  improvements  to 
certain  existing  airports  to  bring  them  up  to 
the  standard  required  for  a  regular  scheduled 
air  service. 

[The  Ontario  government  is  negotiating  an 
agreement  to  participate,  through  an  appro- 
priate agency,  in  the  Polar  Gas  project  to 
Ijring  natural  gas  from  the  Arctic  Islands  to 
Ontario. 

[Studies  will  be  made  regarding  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  port  facility  in  the  James  Bay 
areas  to  bring  potential  supplies  of  gas,  oil 
and  minerals  from  sources  in  the  eastern 
Arctic] 

The  proposals  for  energy  management  an- 
nounced last  June  indicated  my  government's 
long-term  goals  for  the  continued  social,  in- 
dustrial and  economic  progress  of  this  prov- 
ince. Developments  in  the  Middle  East  in 
recent  months  have  further  underlined  the 
pressing  need  for  a  co-ordinated  energy  policy 
for  Canada,  which  the  Ontario  government 
has  been  urging. 

The  government  will  shortly  outline  On- 
tario's policy  on  the  control  and  development 
of  uranium  as  a  provincial  and  national 
resource. 

A  general  development  agreement  between 
the  federal  government  and  the  Ontario  gov- 
ernment has  been  signed.  The  agreement  has 
a  duration  of  10  years  and  is  intended  to 
improve  opportunities  in  those  areas  of  On- 
tario which  are  in  need  of  special  assistance 
and  to  realize  greater  development  potential. 

The  community  of  Cornwall  is  the  first  to 
benefit  from  this  agreement,  and  joint  ex- 
penditures of  approximately  $14  million  will 
be  provided  for  such  projects  as  the  com- 
pletion of  servicing  for  an  industrial  park, 
construction  of  a  civic  centre,  and  the  de- 
velopment of  a  tourist  and  recreational  area. 

[Tourist  operations,  small  businesses  and 
service  industries  will  benefit  from  improved 
loan  programmes  and  financial  assistance  from 
the  three  provincial  development  corpora- 
tions. Operators  of  small  business  establish- 
ments will  receive  more  help  and  advice  in 
solving  management  problems. 

[The  Ontario  Council  for  the  Arts  will 
undertake  a  programme  through  which  prac- 
tising artists  in  the  creative  and  performing 
arts  may  work  in  and  with  local  communities. 
Emphasis  will  be  placed  on  visits  to  schools 
in  remote  areas,  and  on  programmes  in  public 
libraries. 


[A  wide  variety  of  extension  programmes 
will  be  offered  at  provincial  cultural  facilities. 
The  Art  Gallery  of  Ontario  will  establish  an 
internship  programme  to  prepare  fine  arts 
students  for  art  gallery  careers,  as  well  as 
programmes  to  promote  the  visual  arts 
throughout  the  province. 

[In  response  to  the  recommendations  of 
the  Commission  on  Post-Secondary  Education, 
my  government  proposes  to  expand  academic 
and  cultural  opportimities  in  the  open  sector. 
This  will  include  the  extension  of  educational 
broadcast  services  within  the  province,  along 
with  the  development  of  new  and  innovative 
educational  support  materials  for  school  and 
college  students  as  well  as  for  persons  learn- 
ing at  home.] 

You  will  be  asked  to  consider  legislation 
concerning  negotiations  between  the  teaching 
profession  and  school  boards,  as  well  as  pro- 
posals for  the  consolidation  of  all  legislation 
respecting  elementary  and  secondary  educa- 
tion. 

In  keeping  with  my  government's  deter- 
mination to  introduce  programmes  on  a 
selective  basis  to  meet  those  areas  of  greatest 
need,  an  income  support  programme  will  be 
proposed  which  will  assist  in  achieving  a 
greater  measure  of  security  for  Ontario's  older 
citizens  and  for  the  disabled. 

A  proposal  will  be  made  for  a  prescription 
drug  plan  for  our  senior  citizens. 

Ontario's  younger  children  are  presently 
served  by  kindergartens,  daycare  services  of 
approved  agencies  and  special  programmes 
for  the  handicapped.  My  government  will 
continue  to  support  these  services  and  will 
initiate  a  new  programme  of  assistance  for 
co-operative  daycare  centres  in  low-income 
areas.  The  use  of  school  and  other  com- 
munity facilities  for  child  care  will  be  en- 
couraged, and  accommodation  and  stafiing 
regulations  will  be  reviewed  with  the  aim  of 
removing  unnecessary  impediments  to  the 
creation  of  new  services.  Resources  will  be 
made  available  to  expand  high-priority  ser- 
vices such  as  those  for  handicapped  children, 
children  from  low-income  families  and  native 
children. 

Rehabilitation  services  will  be  strengthened 
to  provide  assistance  to  a  larger  number  of 
physically  and  mentally  disabled  persons. 
Special  efforts  will  be  made  to  encourage 
local  initiatives  for  community-based  mental 
retardation  services,  including  new  community 
residences. 

Amendments  to  the  Health  Insurance  Act 
will  provide  a  formal  review  mechanism  for 


[Editor's  Note:   Copy  within  brackets  was  not  read  but  is  contained  in  the  formal  Throne  Speech.] 


MARCH  5,  1974  T 


claims  for  services  by  non-medical  practi- 
tioners, paralleling  the  system  now  used  for 
claims  by  physicians. 

The  report  of  the  health  planning  task 
force,  which  has  been  chaired  by  Dr.  Fraser 
Mustard,  has  been  received  by  my  govern- 
ment. During  the  course  of  this  session,  pro- 
posals will  be  placed  before  you  for  further 
development  of  a  comprehensive  health  plan 
for  the  people  of  Ontario. 

My  government  will  present  proposals  for 
extensive  new  sports,  fitness  and  recreation 
programmes  that  will  offer  more  opportu- 
nities for  the  improved  health  and  enjoyment 
of  the  people  of  Ontario. 

A  health  education  programme  will  be 
prepared  providing  information  on  such 
health  hazards  as  alcohol,  tobacco  and  other 
drugs,  arid  to  encourage  better  use  of  our 
public  health  care  system.  - 

[You  will  be  asked  to  approve  a  major 
educational  and  enforcement  programme  de^ 
signed  to  reduce  the  highway  accident  toll 
caused  by  irnpaired  drivers.  / 

[With  regard  to  the  Ontario  Law  Reform 
Commission's  report  on  administration  of  the 
courts,  my  government  will  proceed  with  a 
planned'  programrtie  of  implementation  for 
judicial  areas  and  for  the  rotation  of  judges 
and  trial  centres  throughout  those  areas  in 
consultation  with  those  affected. 

[My  ^gdvemment  is  reviewing  legislative 
and  common  law  rul6s  affecting  the  family  as 
an  institution  in  such  matters  as  occupational 
and  property  rights  in  the  home  and  laws 
concerning  children,  '  . 

[A  legislative  progranime  will  be  introduced 
ensuring  that  family  law  in  Ontario  reflects 
today's  social  and  economic  realities.  The  ulti- 
mate objective  is  a  code  of  family  law,  with 
special  attention  to  the  status  of  women  and 
for  the  provision  of  a  legal  framework  that 
will  strengthen  the  family  unit  in  our  society. 
Attention  will  also  be  given  to  citifying  the 
legal  rights  of  married  persons.  " 

[My  government  will  create  a  new  oflBce 
for  women  Crpwn  employees  in  order  to  im^ 
prove  perspnn,el  a^ministratiop  ^^di  hiring 
practices.]  ;        ,'    J, 

My  government  intends  to  promote  the 
development  of  small  community-based  adult 
residences  in  place  of  traditional  correctional 
institutions.  These  centres, will  be  used  in  the 
rehabilitation  of  selected  offenders  prioi'  to 
their  release  and  as  residences  for  thos'e  who 
are  working  of  studying  under  the  temporary 
absence  programme.  In  northern  areas  of  the 

[Editoi^s  Noteii  Coisy  within  bniiekets  was  not  read 


province,  centres  will  be  located  closer  to 
communities  with  potential  employment  op- 
portunities. 

A  new  system  will  be  introduced  to  place 
juveniles  in  training  schools  closer  to  their 
own  homes  and  to  provide  better  integration 
of  group  homes,  probation,  aftercare  and  in- 
stitutional services. 

Negotiations  are  under  way  for  operation 
and  supervision  by  private  business  of  an 
industrial  enterprise  within  a  correctional 
centre.  This  innovative  experiment  should 
provide  inmates  with  realistic  employment 
and  training  experience.  The  labour  force 
would  consist  of  those  serving  short  terms 
under  minimum  cuistody,  who  would  be  paid 
competitive  wages.  My  government  is  confi- 
dent that  with  the  support  and  co-operation 
of  labour  unions  and  industry,  the  concept 
can  play  a  worthwhile  part  in  correctional 
services  in  the  years  ahead. 

My  government  will  introduce  legislation 
with  regard  to  consumer  product  warranties 
and  guarantees  in  order  to  provide  bettei; 
protection  for  consumers,  new  redress  pro- 
cedures and  more  flexible  means  of  admin- 
istration. Legislation  vdll  also  be  introduced 
to  protect  the  cojasumer  from  unfair  and 
unacceptable  trade  and  business  practices. 

Hon.  members,  you  will  be  asked  to  con- 
sider provisions  for  the  mandatory  use  of 
automobile  seat  belts. 

Legislation  will  be  presented  to  establis}^ 
an  inter-regional  public  transportation  author- 
ity for  the  Toronto  area;  My  government  be- 
lieves tljis,  legislation  will  maintain  regional 
autonorny -and  .provide  a  model  that  may  ]b^ 
adapted  to, other  areas  of  the  province.  ' 

i  f-yon  will  [  be  asked  to  approve  legislation 
which,  will;  require  an,  environmental  assess-; 
ment  of  major  new  deivelopment  projects.     . 

A  permarient  advisory  committee  on  solid 
waste  management;  will  be  estabhshed  in 
order  to  achieves,  closer  consultation  with  mu- 
nicipal governments?,,  environmental  groups 
arid  industry,  whose  co-operation  is  essential 
to  the  solution  of  problems  created  by  in- 
creasing waste  of  energy  and  material  re- 
sources and  the  difficulties  of  waste  disposal. 

My  government  will  also  propose  other 
measures  for  the  control  and  reduction  of 
litter  and  solid  waste. 

My  government  bdicves  that  positive  steps 
must  be  taken  to  conserve  and  improve  our 
visual  environment.  To  this  end,  your  views 
will  be  sought  with  respect  to  placing  limita- 
tions and  controls  on  outdoor  advertising. 

but  is  contajiied  in  the  f onaaal  Throne  Speech.] 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


For  the  second  consecutive  year,  dwelling 
starts  in  Ontario  have  exceeded  100,000  units, 
a  rate  of  construction  which  is  consistent  with 
the  government's  overall  objective  of  one 
million  new  dwelling  units  in  10  years. 

[To  assist  in  this  achievement,  a  wide  range 
of  programmes  and  approaches  in  housing 
development  and  community  planning  will 
be  proposed,  including  housing  for  Tower- 
income  earners.  These  programmes  will  be 
implemented  within  the  legislative  framework 
of  a  revised  Planning  Act,  amendments  to  the 
Condominium  Act  and  die  establishment  of 
a  new  building  code  for  Ontario,  and  will 
be  characterized  by  a  closer  partnership  with 
other  levels  of  government,  the  private  sector 
and  citizens*  groups. 

[It  is  proposed  to  increase  spending  on  the 
construction  of  sewage  and  water  treatment 
facilities  from  $81  milhon  in  1973  to  $115 
million  this  year.  The  funds  will  be  used  for 
anti-pollution  control  and  high  quality  water 
soipply  programmes  and  servicing  needs  for 
new  home  construction. 

[In  cases  where  land  is  designated  by  the 
government  for  necessary  housing  or  is  being 
held  by  the  private  sector  for  future  develop- 
ment, the  government  will  make  proposals  to 
ensure  continued  agricultural  production  on 
all  suitable  lands  until  they  may  be  required 
for  other  purposes.! 

Twenty-three  communities  have  been  desig- 
nated as  neighbourhood  improvement  areas 
eligible  for  federal-provincial  assistance  for 
planning  and  improving  physical  and  social 
facilities.  My  government  will  urge  the  gov- 
ernment of  Canada  to  extend  assistance  for 
commercial  and  industrial  renewal. 

The  private  sector,  in  consultation  with 
local  and  regional  governments,  will  be  en- 
couraged to  increase  the  supply  of  serviced 
lots  and  to  work  toward  stabilization  of  land 
and  housing  prices.  The  government  looks  to 
the  private  sector  for  even  greater  co-opera- 
tion than  in  the  past  in  the  construction  of 
public  housing,  involvement  with  rent  supple- 
ment and  integrated  community  housing  pro- 
grammes, the  preferred  lending  programme 
and  condominium  building,  so  that  the  hous- 
ing needs  of  a  large  segment  of  the  popula- 
tion can  be  met  within  a  moderate  price 
range. 

A  provincial  home  renewal  programme  will 
be  introduced  with  grants  to  homeowners  and 
municipalities  for  preserving  and  upgrading 
the  quality  of  existing  housing  in  rural  as 
well  as  urban  areas. 


Cet  automne,  le  Premier  ministre  de 
rOntario  sera  I'hdte  de  la  conference  annuelle 
des  premiers  ministres  des  provinces  cana- 
diennes.  Cet  evenement  se  produit  a  un 
moment  particulierement  important  de  notre 
histoire  ou,  en  raison  des  difficultes  qui  nous 
assaillent  au  Canada  et  des  problemes  de 
portee  internationale,  un  renouveau  de  coope- 
ration et  de  comprehension  entre  les  provinces 
s'impose  si  nous  voulons  raflFermir  notre  nation 
et  rehausser  notre  sentiment  national. 

This  autumn,  the  Premier  of  Ontario  will 
be  host  to  the  aimual  conference  of  provin- 
cial premiers.  This  comes  at  a  particularly 
important  time  in  our  history  when  challenges 
facing  us  within  Canada  and  problems  of 
world-wide  significance  will  require  a  new 
level  of  interprovincial  co-operation  and 
understanding  to  strengthen  our  nation  and 
to  maintain  and  enhance  our  sense  of  national 
purpose. 

May  Divine  Providence  guide  you  in  these 
tasks  and  in  the  discharge  of  your  respon- 
sibilities. 

Hon.  members,  I  wish  to  take  the  oppor- 
tunity on  this  occasion  to  state  that  it  has 
been  my  pleasure  and  privilege  to  have  per- 
formed this  duty  over  the  past  five  years.  To 
my  successor,  one  of  Ontario's  most  renowned 
and  distinguished  citizens,  may  I  express  all 
good  wishes  for  her  forthcoming  term  of 
office. 

God  bless  the  Queen  and  Canada. 

The  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor 
was  then  pleased  to  retire  from  the  chamber. 

Prayers. 

Mr.  Speaker:  To  prevent  mistakes,  I  have 
obtained  a  copy  of  His  Honour's  speech, 
which  I  will  now  read. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Oppiosi- 
tion):  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of  order,  if 
you  will  permit  me,  sir;  before  we  go  ahead 
with  the  usual  dispensation  I  would  draw 
your  attention  and  perhaps  to  the  attention  of 
the  Premier  that  according  to  the  copies  of 
the  speech  made  available  there  were  certain 
omissions  in  His  Honour's  speech.  Perhaps 
the  collation  has  been  faulty  and  it  may  be, 
in  fact,  that  not  all  of  the  government's  pro- 
granune  has  been  presented.  . 


[Editor's  Note:  Copy  within  brackets  was  not  read  but  is  contained  in  the  formal  Throne  Speech.] 


MARCH  5,  1974 


Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  Mr.  Speaker^i 
I  still  think  we  could  dispense  with  the 
reading  of  the  Throne  Speech.  I  think  there 
were  several  matters  that  perhaps  were  caught 
when  the  pages  were  being  turned.  The  full 
text  of  the  Throne  Speech  will  be  made  avail- 
able. I  really  don't  think  there  is  any  purpose 
in  rereading  it. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  should  hasten  to  add  that 
doesn't  mean  the  Throne  Speech  isn't  worthy 
of  repetition  on  many  occasions. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  is  agreed,  then,  that  the 
reading  of  the  speech  be  dispensed  with? 

Some  hon.  members:  Agreed. 

Reading  dispensed  with. 


;  '     UNIVERSITY  EXPROPRIATION 
POWERS  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled.  An  Act  to  amend  the  University 
Expropriation  Powers  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis  moves  that  the  speech  of 
the  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor  to 
this  House  be  taken  into  consideration  on 
Thursday  next. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis  moves  the  adjournment  of 
the  House. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjourned  at  3.30  o'clock,  p.m. 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


^-i^     ^  ly    '  ■'       -'  ^        ■'  '         APPENDIX 

ALPHABETICAL  LIST  OF  MEMBERS  OF  THE 

LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 

(117  members) 

Fourth  Session  of  the  Twenty-Ninth  Parliament 
Speaker:  Hon.  Allan  Edward  Renter  Clerk  of  the  House:  Roderick  Lewis,  Q.C. 


Member  Party  Constituency 

Allan,  James  N PC  ...! :  Haldimand-Norfolk 

Apps,  C.  J.  S :.;.:..;.;  FC'  ...  Kingston  and  the  Islands 

Auld,  Hqn.  James  A^  CvM-  -  V .     ^  ^C  Leeds 

Bales,  Dalton  A PC  York  Mills 

Beckett,  Dick  PC  Brantford 

Belanger,  J.  Albert  PC  Prescott  and  Russell 

Bennett,  Hon.  Claude  PC  Ottawa  South 

Bernier,  Hon.  Leo  PC  Kenora 

Birch,  Hon.  Margaret PC  Scarborough  East 

Bounsall,  Ted NDP  Windsor  West 

Braithwaite,  Leonard  A L  Etobicoke 

Breithaupt,  James  R L  Kitchener 

Brunelle,  Hon.  Rene  PC  Cochrane  North 

Bullbrook,  James  E L  Sarnia 

Burr,  Fred  A NDP  Sandwich-Riverside 

Campbell,  Margaret  L  St.  George 

Carruthers,  Alex  PC  Durham 

Carton,  Gordon  R PC  Armourdale 

Cassidy,  Michael  NDP  Ottawa  Centre 

Clement,  Hon.  John  T PC  Niagara  Falls 

Davis,  Hon.  William  G PC  Peel  North 

Davison,  Norm  NDP  Hamilton  Centre 

Deacon,  Donald  M L  YorkCentre 

Deans,  Ian NDP  Wentworth 

Downer,  Rev.  A.  W PC  Dufferin-Simcoe 

Drea,  Frank  PC  Scarborough  Centre 

Dukszta,  Dr.  Jan  NDP  Parkdale 

Dymond,  Dr.  Matthew  B PC  Ontario 

Eaton,  Robert  G PC  Middlesex  South 

Edighoffer,  Hugh L  Perth 

Evans,  D.  Arthur  PC  Simcoe  Centre 

Ewen,  Donald  Wm PC  Wentworth  North 

Ferrier,  Rev.  William NDP  Cochrane  South 

Foulds,  James  F NDP  Port  Arthur 

Gaunt,  Murray  L  Huron-Bruce 

Germa,  Melville  C NDP  Sudbury 

Gilbertson,  Bernt  PC  Algoma 

Gisbom,  Reg NDP  HamiltonEast 

Givens,  Philip  G L  York-Forest  Hill 

Good,  Edward  R L  Waterloo  North 

Grossman,  Hon.  Allan  PC  St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick 

Guindon,  Hon.  Fern PC  Stormont 


MARCH  5.  1974 


Member  Party  Constituency 


Haggerty,  Ray  L Welland  South        .  ...^, 

Hamilton,  Maurice   PC Renfrew  North    .    f|,| 

Handleman,  Hon.  Sidney  B PC .., Carleton  /.,        .; 

Havrot,  Edward  M PC Timiskaining.,y  ;.;f    ,4 

Henderson,  Lome  C PC Lambton     •  , 

Hodgson,  R.  Glen  PC       Victoria-Haliburton 

Hodgson,  William  PC York  North 

Irvine,  Hon.  Donald  R.  PC       Grenville-Dundas 

Jessiman,  James  H PC       ., -Fprt  William      '  f   ,,  /. 

Johnston,  Robert  M PC       St.  Catharines      ' 

Kennedy,  R.  Dougks  PC       Peel  South 

Kerr,  Hon.  George  A PC       Halton  West 

Lane,  John  PC       Algoma-Manitoulin 

Laughren,  Floyd  NDP Nickel  Belt 

Lawlor,  Patrick  D NDP Lakeshore 

Lawrence,  A.  Bert  R PC       Carleton  East  *'*'^ 

Leluk,  Nicholas  G PC       Humber  '-' ^ 

Lewis,  Stephen NDP    Scarborou^  West ' 

MacBeth,  John  P PC       York  West 

MacDonald,  Donald  C NDP    York  South 

Maeck,  Lome  PC       Parry  Sound 

Martel,  Elie  W NDP    Sudbury  East 

Mcllveen,  Charles  E PC       Oshawa 

McKeough,  Hon.  W.  Darey  PC       Chatham-Kent 

McNeil,  Ronald  K PC       Elgin 

McNie,  Hon.  Jack  PC       Hamilton  West 

Meen,  Hon.  Arthur  K.  PC       YorkEast 

Miller,  Hon.  Frank  S PC       Muskoka 

Morningstar,  Ellis  P PC       Welland 

Morrow,  Donald  H PC       Ottawa  West 

Newman,  Bernard  L         Windsor-Walkerville 

Newman,  Hon.  William  PC       Ontario  South 

Nixon,  George  PC       Dovercourt 

Nixon,  Robert  F L         Brant 

Nuttall,  Dr.  W.  J PC       Frontenac-Addington 

Parrott,  Dr.  Harry  C PC       Oxford 

Paterson,  Donald  A L         Essex  South 

Potter,  M.D.,  Hon.  Richard  T PC       Quinte 

Reid,  T.  Patrick  L-Lab   Rainy  River 

Reilly,  Leonard  M PC       Eglinton 

Renwick,  James  A NDP    Riverdale 

Reuter,  Hon.  Allan  E.  PC       Waterloo  South 

Rhodes,  Hon.  John  R PC       Sault  Ste.  Marie 

Riddell,  John       L         Huron 

Rollins,  Clarke  T PC       Hastings 

Root,  John  PC       Wellington-Dufferin 

Rowe,  Russell  D PC       Northumberland 

Roy,  Albert  J L         Ottawa  East 

Ruston,  Richard  F L         Essex-Kent 

Sargent,  Edward L         Grey-Bmce 

Scrivener,  Mrs.  Margaret  PC       St.  David 

Shulman,  Dr.  Morton  NDP    High  Park 


10  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Member  Party  Constituency 

Singer,  Vernon  M L         Downsview 

Smith,  Gordon  E PC       Simcoe  East 

Smith,  John  R PC       Hamilton  Mountain 

Smith,  Richard  S L         Nipissing 

Snow,  Hon.  James  W.  PC       Halton  East 

Spence,  John  P L         Kent 

Stewart,  Hon.  Wm.  A PC Middlesex  North 

Stokes,  Jack  E NDP    Thunder  Bay 

Taylor,  James  A PC       Prince  Edward-Lennox 

Timbrell,  Hon.  Dennis  R PC       Don  Mills 

Turner,  John  M PC       Peterborough 

Villeneuve,  Osie  F PC       Glengarry 

Walker,  Gordon  W PC       London  North 

Wardle,  Thomas  A PC       Beaches-Woodbine 

Welch,  Hon.  Robert PC       Lincoln 

Wells,  Hon.  Thomas  L PC  Scarborough  North 

White,  Hon.  John  PC       London  South 

Winkler,  Hon.  Eric  A.  PC       Grey  South 

Wiseman,  Douglas  J PC       Lanark 

Worton,  Harry  L         Wellington  South 

Yakabuski,  Paul  J,  PC      Renfrew  South 

Yaremko,  John  PC       Bellwoods 

Young,  Fred  NDP    Yorkview 


MARCH  5,  1974  11 


MEMBERS  OF  THE  EXECUTIVE  COUNCH. 

Hon.  William  G.  Davis Premier  and  President  of  the  Council 

Hon.  Robert  Welch  Provincial  Secretary  for  Justice  and 

Attorney  General 

Hon.  Allan  Grossman  Provincial  Secretary  for  Resources  Development 

Hon.  William  A.  Stewart Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food 

Hon.  James  A.  C.  Auld  Minister  of  Colleges  and  Universities 

Hon.  Rene  Brunelle  Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Services 

Hon.  Thomas  L.  Wells Minister  of  Education 

Hon.  Fern  Guindon ., Minister  of  Labour 

Hon.  John  White  Treasurer  of  Ontario,  Minister  of  Economics 

and  Intergovernmental  Affairs 

Hon.  George  A.  Kerr  Solicitor  General 

Hon,  Leo  Bernier  Minister  of  Natural  Resources 

Hon,  Eric  A.  Winkler  Chairman  of  the  Management  Board  of  Cabinet 

Hon.  James  W.  Snow Minister  of  Government  Services 

Hon.  Richard  T.  Potter  Minister  of  Correctional  Services 

Hon,  John  T,  Clement  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations 

Hon.  Jack  McNie Minister  without  Portfolio 

Hon.  Margaret  Birch  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social  Development 

Hon,  Claude  Bennett Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism 

Hon,  W.  Darcy  McKeough Minister  of  Energy 

Hon.  Arthur  K.  Meen Minister  of  Revenue 

Hon.  William  Newman  Minister  of  the  Environment 

Hon.  Sidney  B.  Handleman Minister  of  Housing 

Hon.  Frank  S.  Miller Minister  of  Health 

Hon.  John  R.  Rhodes  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communications 

Hon.  Donald  R.  Irvine  Minister  without  Portfolio 

Hon.  Dennis  R.  Timbrell Minister  without  Portfolio     ' 


PARLIAMENTARY  ASSISTANTS 

Mr.  John  R.  Smith  (Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Education) 

Mr.  Leonard  M.  Reilly  ( Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism ) 

Mr.  Gordon  W.  Walker  (Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Revenue) 

Mr.  Robert  G.  Eaton  (Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food) 

Mr.  Dick  Beckett  (Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communications) 


12  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


CONTENTS 

Tuesday,  March  5,  1974 

Speech  from  the  Throne,  the  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor  3 

University  Expropriation  Powers  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Welch,  first  reading  7 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Davis,  agreed  to  7 

Appendix:  Alphabetical  list  of  the  members  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  of  Ontario  8 


No.  2 


Ontario 


Hegtslature  of  Ontario 
debates 

OFFICIAL  REPORT  —  DAILY  EDITION 


Fourth  Session  of  the  Twenty-Ninth  Legislature 


Wednesday,  March  6,  1974 


Speaker:  Honourable  Allan  Edward  Reuter 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARLIAMENT   BUILDINGS,   TORONTO 

1974 


Price  per  session,  $10.00.  Address,  Clerk  of  the  House,  Parliament  Bldgs.,  Toronto 


CONTENTS 


(Daily  index  of  proceedings  appears  at  back  of  this  issue.) 


15 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  2  o'clock,  p.m. 

Prayers. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Statements  by  the  ministry. 

Oral  questions. 

The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposition. 


WITHDRAWAL  OF  TEACHERS' 
SERVICES 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leadter  of  the  Opposition): 
Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

In  the  absence  of  the  Minister  of  Ed^uca- 
tion  (Mr.  Wells),  I  wonder  if  the  Premier 
could  report  to  the  House  the  status  on  the 
negotiations— the  protracted  negotiations— be- 
tween the  secondary  school  teachers  and  the 
York  county  board? 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  minister,  I  expect,  will  be  here  shortly 
and  could  probably  give  to  the  House  a  more 
detailed  description,  not  as  to  the  state  of  the 
negotiations  in  any  detail,  but  some  of  the 
history  of  it  and  his  own  activities  and  that 
of  the  ministry. 

The  parties  are  meeting— I  believe  they 
reconvened  at  10  o'clock  this  morning— at  the 
request  of  the  minister,  and  I  can  only  assume 
that  negotiations  are  going  on  at  this  precise 
moment  unless  they  are  still  having  lunch; 
and  I  expect  the  minister  will  be  here  very 
shortly. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  He  will  be  here? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  expect  the  minister  will 
be  here  very  shortly. 

Mr.  A.  J.  Roy  (Ottawa  East):  It  took  the 
Premier  a  long  time  to  answer  that  one. 


ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT  OF 
PUBLIC  WORKS 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  was  hoping  the  minis- 
ter would  be  here.  I  would  like  to  put  another 
question  to  the  Premier  arising  out  of  a 
section  in  the  Speech  from  the  Throne  yes- 
terday. Can  he  give  the  House  the  assurance 
that  the  proposal  in  the  speech  calling  for  an 
objective  assessment  of  the  environmental  im- 


Wednesday,  March  6,  1974 

pact  of  public  works— and  I  presume  private 
development  as  well— will  be  used  to,  let's 
say,  either  delay  or  change  the  government's 
announced  decisions  on  the  Amprior  dam  and 
also  on  the  Hydro  high  tension  corridor  in 
western  Ontario,  coming  from  Douglas  Point 
down  into  the  Wingham  area  and  then  over 
to  Georgetown?  Can  the  minister  give  the 
House  the  undertaking  that  the  concept  en- 
visaged in  the  speech,  which  I  believe  to  be 
an  excellent  one,  will  be  used  to  have  an 
effect  on  these  circumstances,  which  are  about 
to  go  forward  unless  a  change  in  policy  is 
stated? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  agree  with 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  as  to  the  excel- 
lence of  the  concept. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Only  if  the  government  is 
prepared  to  use  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  It  is  one  we  are  pioneer- 
ing to  a  certain  extent  with  this  kind  of  pro- 
posed review  agency,  Mr.  Speaker.  It  think  it 
is  fair  to  state  that  if  there  had  been  such 
an  agency  a  period  of  time  ago,  some  of 
these  projects  obviously  would  have  been 
referred  to  it.  I  certainly  can't  undertake  to 
the  member  for  Brant  that  projects  already 
under  way  would  be  referred  to  any  en- 
vironmental review  agency. 

I  would  point  out  to  him— and  I  can't  be 
too  specific  here— that  a  portion  of  the  trans- 
mission line  as  it  relates  to  the  corridbr  re- 
ferred to  has  been  a  matter  of  study  by  Dr. 
Sol'andt. 

Actually,  I  think  one  could  say,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  the  decision'— 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  No,  not 
that  one. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —perhaps  not  that  line, 
but  a  part  of  the  connection  there  with  the 
500  kv  line— to  appoint  Dr.  Solandt  to  review 
the  500  kv  corridor  from  Nanticoke  to  Picker- 
ing is  in  essence  a  form  of  review  procediue. 
As  I  said  to  the  press  two  or  three  days  ago, 
it  is  our  hope  that  we  will  have  Dr.  Solandt's 
report  veiy  shortly.  What  will  flow  from  that 
—well,  electricity  ultimately— in  terms  of  sug- 
gested location,  I  can't  tell  the  House  at  this 


16 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


moment;  but  I  think  really  that  is  one  indica- 
tion of  how  this  review  agency  could  work. 

The  details  of  the  legislation,  and  the 
timing  of  it,  Mr.  Speaker,  are  matters  of  gov- 
ernment policy.  I  would  not  want  to  say  to 
the  member  for  Brant,  as  it  relates  to  projects 
already  under  way,  that  one  can  reverse  the 
situation  and  have  them  a  subject  of  review. 
There  is  no  question  in  my  mind  that  certain 
future  transmission  corridors  obviously  would 
be  a  matter  that  would  be  referred*  to  such  a 
review  board. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary  for 
clarification':  Since  the  high  tension  line  from 
Douglas  Point  to  Bradley  Junction  and 
Georgetown  is  not  under  construction,  and 
since  it  has  not  been  reviewed  by  Dr. 
Solandt,  does  the  Premier  then  mean,  since 
it  is  not  under  construction,  it  will  be  re- 
viewed? And  since  Dr.  Solandt  has  been 
associated,  let's  say,  with  the  Georgetown  end 
of  it,  will  the  Premier  or  his  minister  be  ask- 
ing him  to  review  the  alignment  that  is  under 
discussion,  particularly  since  the  farmers  have 
brought  forward  the  information  that  the 
present  alignment  is  supposedly  using  80  per 
cent  class  1  and  2  land  and  that  an  alternative 
alignment,  even  proposed  by  Hydro  itself, 
uses  about  half  that  much  class  1  and  2  farm 
land? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  it's 
the  kind  of  thing  that  it  would  be  perhaps 
wise  to  refer  to  the  proposed  environmental 
review  board  or  whatever  terminology  is  used. 
As  I  say,  there  is  one  aspect  of  it,  and  that  is 
the  connection  with  the  500  kv  line  some- 
where in  the  area  in  Hal  ton  or  Peel  as  it 
crosses  the  escarpment.  I  think  this  part  of  it 
has  been  a  subject  of  some  consideration,  but 
as  for  the  balance  of  the  transmission  line 
location  or  suggested  location  it  might  be 
handled  very  properly  by  the  review  board. 

This  is  really  what  we  are  endeavouring  to 
do.  The  only  observation  I  make,  Mr. 
Speaker,  in  that  the  Solandt  review  covered 
a  good  portion  of  the  riding  that  I  represent, 
is  that  one  of  the  things  we  must  always  re- 
member is  that,  while  there  may  be  better 
places  for  a  transmission  line,  I  am  sure  there 
can  always  be  improvements  which  will 
satisfy  people  where  the  line  was  perhaps 
intended  to  go  initially.  If  it  is  moved,  I  am 
somewhat  reconciled  to  the  problem  that  will 
be  created  in  the  new  alignment  that  is 
suggested,  wherever  that  may  be.  This  is 
one  of  the  diflBculties  that  we  face. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Hopefully  there  is  an 
alternative  that  will  not  bring  that  problem 
forward. 


Mr.  Lewis:  There  are. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  But  I  can't  find  any  way 
to  have  that  particular  500  kv  line  not  cross 
the  county  of  Peel  somewhere. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  It  can't 
be  done. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  And,  unfortunately,  I  am 
told  it  is  too  expensive  to  put  imderground 
across  that  great  county  too. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  a  supple- 
mentary, if  I  can,  given  the  number  of  angry 
and  anxious  meetings  held  by  the  farmers  with 
Ontario  Hydro  over  the  last  several  months 
on  the  line  from  Douglas  Point  to  George- 
town, can  the  Premier  give  an  undertaking, 
rather  than  being  vague,  that  the  line  v^dll 
not  be  proceeded  with  nor  will'  Hydro  con- 
tinue to  deal  vmpredictably,  as  they  have  been 
dealing  with  the  farmers,  on  dollar  amounts 
and  routes,  until  the  government  has  made 
an  independent  study— independent  of  Hydro 
—or  reviewed  it  all,  so  diat  they  can  be 
appeased  in  a  way  that  is  not  now  the  case? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can't  at 
this  stage,  without  some  review  of  it  and 
until  we  see  the  legislation  and  know  how 
it's  going  to  work,  give  that  firm  a  commit- 
ment. I  think  it  is  obvious  that  it  is  the  land 
of  situation  which  the  environmental  review 
board  or  agency,  whatever  term  is  used,  is 
anticipated  to  cover.  But  to  say  to  the  hon. 
member  at  this  point  that  I  can  give  a  firm 
commitment,  I  can't  do  that  at  this  moment. 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):   Supple- 
mentary, Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  By  way  of  further  supple- 
mentary, Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  If  I  can  turn  to  Amprior— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Who  are  you  recognizing, 
Mr.  Speaker? 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  the  hon.  Leader  of  the 
Opposition.  Then  I  will  come  back  to  the 
hon.  member  for  Ottawa  Centre. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
Premier,  since  the  hearings  of  necessity  under 
the  Expropriations  Act  are  going  on  right 
now,  today,  would  he  undertake  to  discuss  the 
matter  with  the  Minister  of  Energy'  (Mr. 
McKeough)  as  a  matter  of  some  priority  so 
that  if  in  fact  an  objective  hearing  is  decided 
upon,  which  is  certainly  urged  by  the  farmers 
concerned,  that  these  hearings  can  be  stood 
down  or  stopped  completely  until  an  objec- 
tive assessment  is  available? 


MARCH  6,  1974 


17 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is  cer- 
tainly an  undertaking  I  can  give.  I  vdll  dis- 
cuss it  with  the  Minister  of  Energy  very 
shortly. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker, 
if  I  can  turn  to  Amprior.  In  view  of  the  fact 
that  the  environmental  hearing  board  pro- 
posed by  the  government  will  not  be  estab- 
lished for  some  time,  and  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  about  $10  million  out  of  an  $82-million 
project  has  now  been  spent— maybe  $7 
million  or  $8  million-but  $70  or  $75  milhon 
has  yet  to  be  spent,  will  the  Premier  agree 
to  an  independent  inquiry  into  that  project 
because  of  the  valid  points  which  have  been 
made  to  date  about  the  erosion  that  may 
occur  behind  the  dam,  about  the  economic 
inadequacies  of  the  project,  and  about  the 
loss  and  mistreatment  of  farmers  whose  land 
has  not  yet  been  expropriated',  but  which  will 
be  flooaed  by  work  currently  under  con- 
struction? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can't  give 
any  such  undertaking  to  have  an  inquiry 
related  to  those  matters.  I  can  only  say  to 
the  hon.  member  that  Ontario  Hydro  is  aware 
and  the  government  is  aware  of  potential 
problems  that  may  or  may  not  arise,  and 
obviously  they  vdll  take  these  into  account. 
But  1  must  say  to  the  hon.  member,  we  do 
not  propose  to  have  an  inquiry  in  that  sense 
of  the  word  as  it  relates  to  the  Amprior 
project. 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West):  Supple- 
mentary, Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  Speaker:  One  more  supplementary.  The 
hon.  member  for  Timiskaming  would  like  a 
supplementary. 

Mr.  BounsaU:  Windsor  West. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Windsor  West,  I  am  sorry. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  hon.  member  for  Timis- 
kaming, God  forbid. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  With  reference  to  the  orig- 
inal question  about  the  line  across  south- 
western Ontario,  regarding  that  portion  of 
in  between  Wingham  junction  and  Kitchener, 
would  the  Premier  speak  to  Hydro  vidth  a 
view  to  seeing  that  they  purchase  only 
enough  land  required  for  the  power  that  can 
be  transmitted  along  that  corridor,  which  is 
two  lines,  rather  than  the  three-line  width 
which  they  are  attempting  to  purchase? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  under- 
standing is  that  a  route  hasn't  been  selected. 


so  I  can't  give  an}'  commitment  on  this  at 
all.  Quite  obviously  one  can't  do  it. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  But  the  Premier  knows  what 
width   they're   trying   to   purchase. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  But  we  don't  know  the 
route. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position. 

Interjection  by  hon.  member. 


WITHDRAWAL  OF  TEACHERS' 
SERVICES 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Mr,  Speaker,  now  that 
the  Minister  of  Education  is  in  his  place,  I 
wonder  if  he  would  report  to  the  House  on 
the  status  of  the  negotiations  in  York  and  in 
the  Windsor  area. 

Hon.  T.  L.  Wells  (Minister  of  Education): 
Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  be  very  pleased  to. 

In  regard  to  the  York  county  dispute  be- 
tween the  secondary  teachers  and  that  board, 
talks  began  again  this  morning  and  are  pres- 
ently carrying  on,  with  the  help  of  a  Ministry 
of  Labour  mediator,  at  the  Ministry  of 
Labour  oflBces  on  University  Ave. 

In  regard  to  the  Windsor  situation,  this 
was  something  that  came  up  because  of  a 
misunderstanding,  a  misinterpretation,  a  fail- 
ing of  the  two  parties  to  get  together  on 
the  wording  of  the  final  memorandum  to  send 
the  matters  to  voluntary  arbitration. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That's  pretty  land.  The  min- 
ister is  in  a  generous  mood. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon,  Mr.  Wells:  The  facts  of  the  matter 
actually  are  that— 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  board  is  nuts.  That's  the 
fact  of  the  matter. 

Hon.    Mr.    Wells:    —an    agreement    was 
signed,  that  I  and   one  of  the  Ministry  of 
Labour  negotiators  wrote  out  on  a  piece  of 
hotel  paper  in  pencil- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  Would  the 
minister  care  to  specify  which  location  and 
the  hotel? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  won't  mention  the  name 
of  the  hotel  for  fear  of  giving  any  free 
publicity. 


18 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  they  don't  have  to— 

Mr.  J.  E.  Bullbrook  (Samia):  I'll  bet  they're 
in  the  Royal  York, 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  No,  they  aren't,  as  a  matter 
of  fact.  They're  down  in  the  town  of  my 
friend's  colleague  from  Windsor. 

Mr.  Lewis:  In  a  non-union  hotel,  I  might 
say. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  The  actual  statement  that 
was  signed  by  both  the  board  and  the 
teachers  said  that  because  they  had  failed 
to  reach  any  agreement,  they  would  submit 
the  matters  still  in  dispute  to  arbitration 
which  would  be  final  and  binding  on  both 
parties.  I  think  there  is  no  question  that 
that  was  the  intent.  That  was  my  intent,  that 
was  the  teachers'  intent  and  I  had  assumed 
it  was  the  board's  intent.  There  seems  to 
have  developed  some  misunderstanding  after 
that  concerning  whether  an  award  of  a  board 
of  arbitration  could  be  appealable  or  not. 
Certainly,  I  have  made  it  very  clear  to  the 
board  that  there  is  no  question  that  an  arbitra- 
tion board  set  up  in  a  dispute  such  as  this, 
which  is  essentially  a  labour  management  dis- 
pute, is  not  appealable. 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  Does 
the  minister  think  they  are  bargaining  in 
good  faith? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  think,  though,  that  the 
matter  will  be  straightened  out  today.   Our 
people  have  been  meeting  with  both  sides- 
Mr,    R.    F.    Nixon:    That's    the    Windsor 
matter. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  think  he's  right. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Yes.  Our  people  have 
been  meeting  with  both  sides  and  I'm  pretty 
well  assured  that  they  will  now  sign  an  agree- 
ment and  will  get  on  with  the  arbitration. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  What  about  York? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I'm  just  as  hopeful  about 
York. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  What 
about  the  York  business?  Has  the  minister 
taken  part  in  the  negotiations  himself?  Does 
he  intend  to  do  so?  What  is  the  story  about 
these  sort  of  secret  meetings  that  have  been 
reported  where  the  minister  does  come  for- 
ward with  alternatives  but  says  that  he  is  not 
participating  himself  in  the  negotiations? 
Why  doesn't  he  participate? 


Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Well  actually,  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  fact  of  the  matter  is— and  I'm 
sure  my  friend,  if  he's  done  any  of  this  kind 
of  mediating,  knows  there  are  times  when  I 
can  participate  and  there  are  times  when  I 
cannot— I  did,  in  fact,  participate  in  the  nego- 
tiations toward  the  end  of  January- 
Mr.  Lewis:  He  did  indeed. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Toward  the  end  of  Janu- 
ary when  we  were  dealing  with  many  of  the 
boards  and  at  that  time- 
Mr.  Lewis:  Why  didn't  the  minister  appoint 
the  member  for  York  Centre  (Mr.  Deacon)? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  —we  were  attempting  then 
to  avert— 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development):  That  would  be  total 
failure. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  We  were  attempting  to 
avert— 

Mr.  Lewis:  They  could  settle  a  year  from 
now. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  We  were,  in  fact,  attempt- 
ing to  avert  a  walkout.  Unfortunately,  at  the 
11  ^th  hour,  this  just  didn't  come  about  and 
at  that  time,  as  I'm  sure  the  hon.  member  is 
very  aware,  I  was  very  involved  and  I  issued 
a  statement  at  the  end  to  both  parties  calling 
upon  them  to  go  to  vollmtary  arbitration, 
which  was  rejected  and  which  I  also  called 
for  because  they  failed— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  minister  called  them 
both  irresponsible. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Yes,  and  I  think  they  both 
were  at  that  time,  because  they  failed  to  pre- 
vent a  walkout  by  going  to  voluntary  arbitra- 
tion. I  don't  put  the  blame  on  either  side  but 
that  didn't  come  about,  and  I  felt  it  would 
have  been  more  responsible  if  the  walkout 
hadn't  occurred— 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  That's  one  of  the 
problems. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  —and  that  time  arbitration 
had  come  about.  Once  the  strike  took  place 
it  became  obvious  that  for  all  concerned  a 
negotiated  settlement  would  be  a  much  better 
arrangement,  and  certainly  there  is  no  place 
for  me  in  the  negotiations  that  were  going  on 
to  arrive  at  a  negotiated  settlement.  The  Min- 
istry of  Labour  mediator,  who  of  course,  is 
also  part  of  the  labour-management  negotiat- 
ing process  of  this  government,  has  been  in 


MARCH  6,  1974 


19 


at  all  their  meetings.  As  a  matter  of  fact  he 
told  me  that  he  spent  more  time  on  this  dis- 
pute than  he  had  on  any  major  labour  dis- 
pute in  this  province. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  shows. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  He's  still  sitting  at  the 
table  with  them  and  I  stand  ready  to  be  of 
help  on  the  thing  at  any  time  that  I  can,  but 
at  the  moment,  I  think  it  is  best  served  to  let 
both  the  parties,  with  the  Ministry  of  Labour 
mediator,  carrying  on  negotiations. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough West. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Has  the  minister  informed  the 
hoard  of  York  county  in  no  uncertain  terms 
that  pupil-teacher  ratio  is  a  negotiable  con- 
dition, as  he  envisages  it  to  he  in  Bill  275, 
and  should  be  in  this  dispute? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  had 
discussions  with  the  board  there.  They  know 
my  personal  opinions  and  I  think  it  should 
suffice  that  that  is  the  extent  that  I  should 
mention  at  this  time  while  negotiations  are 
going  on. 

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  A  supple- 
mentary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  York 
Centre. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Since  there  is  an  indication 
that  the  York  county  school  trustees  will  move 
to  resign  tomorrow  if  a  settlement  has  not 
been  reached,  is  he  prepared  to  set  up  a 
trusteeship  in  York  and  get  the  teachers  back 
in  the  classrooms  pending  a  new  election  of 
trustees? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  hate  to  answer  these 
hypothetical  questions. 

Mr.  Deacon:  I  think  he  needs  to  now. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  My  friend  knows  too  that 
there  certainly  has  been  no  indication  from 
the  majority  of  trustees  that  they  are  inter- 
ested in  resigning  at  this  point  in  time.  Now, 
if  they're  aM  going  to  tender  their  resigna- 
tions, certainly  we'll  take  steps  to  see  that  a 
new  board  or  new  trustees  are  elected  or 
appointed. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Is  the  minister  in  favour 
of  mass  resignations  in  this  instance? 

Mr.  Deans:  Why  doesn't  the  minister  re- 
fuse  to  accept  the  resignations? 


Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  But  I'd  say  we'd  better 
wait  and  see.  I  might  also— 

An  hon.  member:  Do  they  have  the  right  to 
strike? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  might  also  indicate  to 
my  friend  that  I  think  the  School  Act  says 
that  a  trustee  can  only  resign  with  the  con- 
currence of  a  majority  of  his  colleagues. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

An  hon.  member:  What  if  they  all  resign? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  There's  also  something  in 
the  School's  Administration  Act  that  prevents 
everybody  from  resigning  and  leaving  the 
board  without  a  quorum. 

Mr.  Lewis:  How  to  administer  it? 

Mr.  Foulds:  Bill  274A. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Windsor 
West  with  a  supplementary. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  With  reference  to  the  situa- 
tion in  Windsor,  in  the  last  day  or  two,  or 
even  prior  to  that,  has  the  minister  made  it 
very  clear  to  the  Windsor  separate  board 
that  pupil-teacher  ratio  and  working  condi- 
tions are  both  proper  subject  matters  for 
arbitration? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
not  been  asked  that  question.  The  only  ques- 
tion I  have  been  asked'  is— 

Mr.  Foulds:  He  just  was. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  The  only  question  I  have 
been  asked  is  whether  the  Arbitrations  Act 
applies  to  the  arbitration  in  the  Windsor 
situation.  We  have  offered  a  legal  opinion  to 
that  board  that  it  does  not  and  that  the  de- 
cision of  the  board  of  arbitration  is  not 
appealable  on  the  matter  of  the  decision. 
There  are  still,  of  course,  certain  points  of 
law,  human  rights  and  so  forth,  and  any 
violations  of  those  can  be  taken  to  the  courts 
in  any  situation. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Is  the  minister  not  aware 
that  those  are  the  very  two  areas  that  the 
Windsor  separate  board  is  wishing  to  appeal 
on,  should  they  go  to  arbitration? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  No,  that  has  never  been 
made  known  to  me,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  under- 
stood there  were  12  items  in  dispute  that 
were  appended  to  the  recommendation  or  the 
agreement  that  was  signed  to  go  to  arbitra- 
tion, and  that  both  parties  agreed  they  were 
the  matters  to  go  to  arbitration.  I  think  they 
are  the  ones  that  should  go. 


20 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Leader  of  the 
Opposition. 

Mr.  Roy:  A  supplementary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  perhaps  further  dis- 
cussion would  only  constitute  a  debate.  The 
hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposition? 

The  hon.  member  for  Scarborough  West. 

COST  OF  LAND  FOR  HOUSING 

Mr.  Lewis:  Can  I  ask  the  new  Minister  of 
Housing,  Mr.  Speaker,  what  specifics  he  has 
in  mind  to  take  the  land  supply  factor  out  of 
the  cost  of  housing  by  1976? 

Hon.  S.  B.  Handleman  (Minister  of  Hous- 
ing): Mr.  Speaker,  we  have  made  some 
general  statements  about  our  programme  in 
the  future,  and  obviously  specifics  will  be 
announced  in  the  House  in  due  course. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  Since 
one  of  the  specifics  that  has  already  been— 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  The  min- 
ister learns  fast. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  it  is— 

Mr.  Lewis:  And  the  Provincial  Secretary 
for  Resources  Development  isn't  even  in  the 
House,  Mr.  Speaker.  Can  the  minister  give 
us  some  guarantee  that  the  increase  in  hous- 
ing prices  in  Metropolitan  Toronto  alone— 
which  have  jumped  from  $31,357  at  the  time 
of  the  Throne  Speech  of  two  years  ago  to 
$46,210  at  the  time  of  the  Throne  Speech 
this  week— will  now  cease  its  upward  spiral 
by  the  announcements  he  wall  make,  pre- 
sumably, momentarily? 

Mr.  Roy:  Let  him  put  his  career  on  the 
line. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will 
guarantee  only  one  thing— that  my  ministry 
will  do  everything  possible  to  see  that  that 
happens. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supple- 
mentary question:  Since  one  specific  figure 
was  mentioned  in  the  speech  and  that  is  the 
funds  the  government  is  prepared  to  commit 
—the  extra  funds  it  is  prepared  to  commit  to 
servicing  land— is  the  Minister  of  Housing 
satisfied  that  an  extra  $15  million— I  believe 
that  was  the  amount- 
Mr.  Deacon:  Municipalities  haven't  money 
to  service  land. 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  —is  in  fact  going  to  im- 
prove the  stock  of  serviced  land  to  the  extent 
that  it  is  going  to  stabilize  prices? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Obviously  not. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the 
hon.  member  will  read  the  speech  again,  he 
will  note  that  that  was  an  amount  of  money 
which  would  be  spent  by  my  colleague,  the 
Minister  of  the  Environment  (Mr.  W. 
Newman).  When  our  estimates  are  tabled 
he  will  see  the  amount  of  money  that  we 
have  in  our  housing  programme. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary;  surely— 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Ottawa 
Centre. 

Mr.  R.  M.  Johnston  (St.  Catharines):  Why 
don't  those  members  pitch  a  tent? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  does  the  minis- 
ter's pledge  to  stabilize  the  price  of  land  by 
1976  mean  that,  with  the  present  trends  of 
land  prices  in  cities  like  Toronto  and  Ottawa, 
which  vdll  lead  to  the  cost  of  a  lot  at  about 
$20,000,  that  will  be  the  price  at  which  he 
intends  to  stabilize  land  prices? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Stabihze  at  $20,000. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can't 

give  the  House- 
Mr.  Lewis:  No,  he  can't.  The  whole  Throne 

Speech  was  bogus. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  No,  I  can't  give  the 
House  any  specifics  of  a  programme  which  has 
not  yet  been  announced. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Right,  There  is  no  programme. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  When  the  pro- 
gramme is  announced,  our  goals  will  be  an- 
nounced at  the  same  time. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Downs- 
view. 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  Mr. 
Speaker,  by  way  of  supplementary,  can  the 
minister  tell  us  if  any  of  the  supply  of  knd 
for  the  building  of  the  new  homes  referred 
to  in  the  Speech  from  the  Throne  is  going  to 
come  from  land  presently  designated  as  park- 
way belt?  In  other  words,  is  the  parkway 
belt  going  to  be  removed  entirely  or  in  part 
or  interfered  with  at  all? 

Mr.  Lewis  He  doesn't  know  yet. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  He  doesn't  know. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
administration  of  the  parkway  belt,  of  course, 
is  not  under  my  ministry. 


MARCH  6,  1974 


21 


Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  There  are  discussions 
taking  place  at  the  present  time. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  The  minister  is  trying  to  get 
some. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  An  announcement 
will  be  made  in  due  course. 

Mr.  Johnston:  They  are  going  to  call  them 
parkway  homes. 

Mr.  Lewis:  By  way  of  supplementary:  Why, 
when  the  minister  spoke  to  the  Toronto  Real 
Estate  Association  on  the  auspicious  occasion 
of  his  first  public  pronouncement- 
Mr.  MacDonald:  His  maiden  speech. 

Mr.  Lewis:  —his  maiden  speech  as  a  min- 
ister, why  did  the  minister  say  that  the  gov- 
ernment would  join  with  the  private  sector  to 
create  more  housing,  using  precisely  the  same 
programme  that  his  predecessor  had  impugned 
—had  said  didn't  work— just  before  he  resign- 
ed or  just  before  he  was  moved,  before  he 
ascended  or  whatever  he  did? 

Mr.  Foulds:  Shuffled  sideways. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  didn't 
think  this  is  the  occasion  to  repeat  the  speech, 
but  for  the  clarification  of  the  hon.  member 
I  did  say  that  it  is  going  to  be  a  tripartite 
arrangement- 
Mr.  Lewis:  Tripartite? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  —between  the  Prov- 
ince of  Ontario,  the  municipalities  and  the 
private  sector,  and  when  the  programme  is 
announced  the  hon.  member  will  have  an 
opportunity  to  criticize  its  specifics. 

Mr.  Speaker:  One  more  supplementary. 

Mr.  E.  R.  Good  (Waterloo  North):  Supple- 
mentary: Since  it  was  the  hon.  minister  who 
said  in  his  speech  that  it  was  the  lack  of 
serviced  land  which  was  causing  the  problem 
in  housing  today  in  the  Province  of  Ontario- 
something  which  we  have  known  here  for 
years- 
Mr.  Roy:  Didn't  the  minister  say  that? 

Mr.  Good:  —what  is  he  going  to  do  about 
it? 

Mr.  Singer:  That  is  a  good  question. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Stabilize  at  $25,000. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Just  a  mild  correc- 
tion. I  did  say  that  the  lack  of  serviced  land 


was  one  of  the  major  factors  in  the  price  in- 
flation factor.  And  what— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  Better  get 
the  shovel  out. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  minister  has  been  reading 
Hansard. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  —we  are  going  to 
do  about  it,  I  have  already  stated,  Mr.  Speak- 
er; we  will  announce  a  programme  in  due 
course. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough West. 


NORTH  PICKERING  DEVELOPMENT 

Mr.  Lewis:  Here  is  a  question  for  the  Min- 
ister of  Housing  he  can  answer.  Is  he  going 
to  undertake— 

Mr.  Singer:  Give  him  a  file,  he  will  answer 
that  in  due  course. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Is  he  going  to  use  more  com- 
mon sense  than  the  blunderbuss  approach  of 
his  predecessor  and  allow  for  an— 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  —inquiry  into  the  government's 
expropriation  of  land  in  North  Pickering  and 
its  suspension  of  the  inquiry  procedure  under 
the  Expropriations  Act,  which  is  surely  un- 
precedented? -        .    - .,   -. , . 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  The  Minister  of  the  En- 
vironment will  be  interested  too. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  be- 
lieve that  is  a  two-part  question. 

In  answer  to  the  first  part,  I  never  did 
begin  to  beat  my  wife;  and  the  second  part, 
we  are  studying  the  question  with  the  North 
Pickering  people  at  the  present  time.  I've 
already  met  with  them  and  I  believe  that 
they  have  agreed  that  the  procedure  we  are 
now  following  is  almost  necessary  under  the 
circumstances. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough West. 

Mr.  Roy:  Is  the  Premier  proud  of  the  min- 
ister? 


22 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Speaker:  That  was  question  No.  7  on 
housing.  I  think  we've  had  enough. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That  was  a  separate  question, 
Mr.  Speaker. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Look  at  what  has  been 
asked. 

Mr.  Deacon:   Will   the  minister   advise  us 

then- 
Mr.    Breithaupt:    Like    an    end   man    in    a 

minstrel  show. 

Mr.  Deacon:  —whether  or  not  he  will  pat- 
tern his  procedure  with  North  Pickering  after 
the  procedure  used  in  the  airport,  where  the 
people  have  got  some  advances  on  land  that 
has  been  expropriated  but  where  they  are  not 
necessarily  expropriated  until  there  is  a  full 
inquiry  and  there  is  a  decision  by  the  inquiry? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  That  is  not  right. 

Mr.  Deacon:  It  is,  it  is. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handelman:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is 
my  understanding  of  the  Expropriation  Act 
that  a  hearing  of  necessity  is  only  required, 
or  should  only  be  held,  when  there  is  a  pos- 
sibility of  the  hearing  being  allowed.  Under 
the  circumstances— there  being  no  plan  for 
development,  because  we  wish  to  involve  the 
people  in  the  area  in  the  developing  of  the 
plan— a  hearing  of  necessity  would  simply  be 
useless,  because  it  vv'ouldn't  be  a  plan  against 
which  they  could  appeal. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Oh,  Mr.  Speaker,  as  a  supple- 
mentary— 

An  hen.  member:  He's  right. 

Mr.  Lewis:  —the  statute  requires  a  hearing 
of  necessity  unless  the  minister  removes  it 
in  the  so-called  public  interest  and  a  hearing 
of  necessity  is  to  see  if  the  expropriation 
conforms  with  the  objects  required.  Now  why 
has  the  government  taken  away  the  right  to 
a  formal  hearing  for  all  of  those  people 
whose  land  it  is  expropriating? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  be- 
lieve I  answered  that  question  in  my  previous 
remarks. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Is  it  true 
that  the  minister's  previous  answer  indicated 
that  the  people  who  now  own  the  land  agree 
with  him  that  a  hearing  is  not  required? 
Surely  that  is  nonsense? 

Mr.  Good:  That  is  nonsense. 


Mr.  Lewis:  That  is  nonsense. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  what  I 
said  was  that  we  have  explained  to  them  the 
reasons  why  the  hearings  of  necessity  were 
cancelled  and  they  understand  the  reasons 
why.  I  didn't  say  that  they  agreed  necessarily 
with  them. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Power!  Raw  power. 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  by  way  of  sup- 
plementary- 
Mr.    Speaker:    Order,    order.    There    have 
been   eight   or   nine   supplementaries,   which 
surely  must  be  sujEBcient. 

The  hon.  member  for  Scarborough  West. 

An  hon.  member:  Be  my  guest. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  How  many  questions  does 
this  fellow  get? 


SEMINAR  ON  MAINTAINING 
NON-UNION  STATUS 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Labour.  Is  the  Minister  of  Labour  aware 
that  Executive  Enterprises  Inc.,  based  in  New 
York,  is  having  a  seminar  on  how  to  maintain 
non-union  status— a  union-busting  seminar  or 
an  effort  to  prevent  unions  in  Ontario— at  the 
Royal  York  Hotel  in  April  of  this  year  and 
has    he    looked    into    their    programme? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  George  Meany  is  the  guest 
speaker. 

Hon.  F.  Guindon  (Minister  of  Labour):  No, 
Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  the  first  time  that  this  has 
come  to  my  attention. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  by  way  of  supplementary, 
when  the  minister  examines  it,  would  he 
look  at  the  outline  of  the  programme,  includ- 
ing topics  like  "making  unions  unnecessary" 
and  "preventing  the  formation  of  unions"— 
and  it's  not  George  Meany  who  is  the  guest 
speaker— but  could  the  minister  ask  himself 
about  the— 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  —propriety  of  a  seminar  leader, 
K.  B.  Dixon,  director  of  personnel,  Hamilton 
Civic  Hospitals,  and  president  of  the  Hospital 
Personnel  Relations  Bureau  for  Ontario;  and 
perhaps  that  makes  it  a  little  clearer  to  the 
minister  why  there  is  so  much  discrimination 
and  difiiculty  in  the  hospital  worker  sector 
in  this  province. 


MARCH  6,  1974 


23 


Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Cuindon:  I  will  be  glad  to  look 
at  that. 

Mr.   Speaker:   Does   the   hon.   member  for 
Scarborough  West  have  further  questions? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Not  today,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.    Speaker:    If   not,    I   believe   the   hon. 
member  for  Windsor-Walkerville  has  one. 


AUTOMOTIVE  INDUSTRY  OVERTIME 
PERMITS 

Mr.  B.  Newman  ( Windsor- Walkerville): 
Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question  of 
the  Minister  of  Labour. 

In  light  of  the  ever-rising  numbers  of  un- 
employed in  the  automotive  industry— at 
General  Motors  and  Ford,  particularly— and 
in  light  of  the  fact  that  there  is  a  continual 
request  of  the  ministry  for  overtime,  is  the 
minister  considering  either  not  issuing  any 
more  overtime  permits,  or  at  least  hingeing 
the  number  of  overtime  permits  being  given 
according  to  some  percentage  of  the  number 
of  unemployed  in  the  industry? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker.  We 
have  of  course,  two  types  of  overtime  per- 
mits. Some  have  to  do  with  general  permits 
which  will  allow  100  hours  of  overtime  for 
employees  for  one  year.  We  don't  think  that 
this  will  have  any  effect  at  all.  However,  we 
also  have  special  permits— and  I'm  looking  at 
this  at  the  present  time  to  see  if  it  does 
affect  employment  in  the  area. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  York 
South. 


PRICE  REVIEW  OF  FARM  SUPPLIES 
AND  EQUIPMENT 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food: 
Since  the  premiers  of  the  four  western  prov- 
inces decided  last  week  at  their  meeting  that 
they  were  going  to  set  up  a  mechanism  to 
review  prices  for  the  two  major  farm  inputs 
of  fertilizer  and  farm  machinery  in  order  to 
protect  their  farmers,  is  the  Province  of 
Ontario  contemplating  similar  action  here— 
and  if  not,  why  not? 

Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food):  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  there 
is  a  conference  on  the  fertilizer  industry, 
which   is   a   national   conference,   that   starts 


here  in  Toronto  on  Monday  morning  next. 
It  will  last  for  two  days.  But  as  far  as  a  price 
review  of  fertilizer  and  machinery  parts  is 
concerned— no,  we  have  not  contemplated 
this. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
return  if  I  might  by  way  of  supplementary: 
Obviously  the  western  premiers  were  aware 
of  this  national  conference  next  week  and 
deemed  this  to  be  an  appropriate  action  for 
the  protection  of  their  farmers.  Does  the 
minister  not  think  there  is  an  obligation  on 
the  part  of  this  government  to  protect  Ontario 
farmers,  or  is  it  going  to  let  the  governments 
of  western  Canada  do  it  incidentally  to  the 
extent  they  can? 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Well,  perhaps  we'll  see 
what  the  results  are,  Mr.  Speaker.  Unfor- 
tunately, the  three  western  provinces  that 
have  NDP  governments  have  never  suc- 
ceeded in  anything  yet,  and  I'll  be  surprised 
if  they  do  so  on  this. 

Interjections    by    hon.    members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.— 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  It's  almost 
a  political  partisan  reply. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  The  hon.  member  for 
Rainy  River. 

Mr.    MacDonald:    Supplementary:    Is    the 

minister- 
Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Rainy 

River. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Well,  I  have  a  supple- 
mentary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Well,  the  hon.  member  for 
York  South  asked  a  supplementary.  I  will 
come  back  to  him. 

Mr.  Lewis:  But  that  was  a  political  answer. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Rainy 
River  has  a  supplementary. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainy  River):  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  minister  being  so  sharp  I  hate  to  take  him 
on,  but  I  wonder  if  the  minister  can  give  us 
any  indication  of  what  his  department  is 
doing  about  the  high  cost  of  things  like 
fertilizer  and  also  twine,  which  I  understand 
is  in  short  supply?  And  would  the  minister 
not  agree  that  the  Province  of  Ontario  should 
have  a  prices  review  board  in  which  these 


24 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


prices  can  be  reviewed  by  a  committee  of 
this  Legislature  to  justify  the  increases  in 
these  commodities? 

An  hon.  member:  It  is  NDP  policy— the 
member  has  taken  it  up  now. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  all 
hon.  members  know,  we  are  vitally  concerned 
in  the  cost  of  the  inputs  of  agricultural  food 
production. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  I  believe  that  one  of 
the  ways  to  resolve  the  matter,  as  my  hon. 
friend  so  rightly  brings  to  our  attention  and 
with  which  we  are  all  concerned,  is  to  gener- 
ate increased  sources  of  supply,  and  how  that 
is  accomplished  is  the  main  objective  that 
I  would  like  to  see  tackled.  I  believe  we  have 
to  recognize  that  for  a  great  many  years 
in  the  matter  of  twine,  we  will  say,  which 
is  a  commodity  that  very  seldom  is  raised 
on  the  floor  of  this  House,  is  a  matter  that 
simply  is  reflected  on  the  low  cost  of  pro- 
duction over  a  great  many  years. 

With  the  cheap  steel  prices  of  a  few  years 
ago,  Japan  went  into  the  production  of  wire 
for  baling  purposes.  They  undercut  all  the 
markets  by  the  introduction  of  this  cheap 
baler  wire.  The  result  was  that  many  of  the 
hemp  or  twine  manufacturing  operations  just 
couldn't  compete  and  they  dropped  out  of 
the  business. 

Along  with  that,  plastic  twine  came  on  the 
market  and  with  the  shortage  of  energy  that 
we  are  all  very  much  aware  of  today,  the 
byproducts  of  the  oil  industry  are  not  avail- 
able for  the  continued  manufacture  in  volume 
of  plastic  twine. 

The  problem  is  further  complicated,  Mr. 
Speaker,  by  the  fact  that  steel  prices  now 
have  escalated.  There  is  a  general  apparent 
steel  shortage  throughout  the  world.  Japan 
is  no  longer  interested  in  prodlicing  cheap 
wire  twine  for  baling  purposes  and  that 
product  is  off  the  market. 

'Now  where  do  we  go?  The  hemp  industry 
is  largely  out  of  business,  or  at  least  not  in  a 
position  to  produce  as  it  has  been  in  the 
past,  and  with  the  apparent  scarcity  the  price 
has  escalated  to  about  three  times  what  it 
was  a  year  ago.  Now  we  are  trying  to  get 
that  resolved. 

Largely  the  same  thing  applies  as  far  as 
fertilizer  is  concerned  and  I  would  hope  we 
would  be  able  to  get  somewhere  with  that. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  York 
South  has  a  supplementary. 


Mr.  MacDonald:  A  non-partisan  supple- 
mentary, Mr.  Speaker,  to  parallel  the  minis- 
ter. Since  a  gentleman  by  the  name  of 
Lougheed  was  an  enthusiastic  participant  in 
that  decision  involving  the  four  western  prov- 
inces, isn't  it  possible  that  the  minister  might 
catch  up  with  him? 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  Just  for 
the  record,  he's  a  separatist  statesman. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Does  the  minister  mean 
he  is  going  to  do  nothing? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Is  there  any  further  answer 
to  that  supplementary?  If  not,  the  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Ottawa  East  was  on  his  feet  pre- 
viously. 


INQUIRY  ON  BUILDING  INDUSTRY 

Mr.  Roy:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  have 
a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Labour. 

Undoubtedly  the  minister  is  familiar  with 
the  evidence  given  before  the  royal  commis- 
sion on  organized  crime  in  the  construction 
industry  in  the  Ottawa  area.  Evidence  was 
given  that  certain  Montreal  unions  are  trying 
to  move  into  the  Ottawa-Hull  sector,  using 
intimidation  against  not  only  union  oflBcials 
but  certain  Ottawa  contractors.  Has  the  min- 
ister considered  getting  together  with  his 
colleague  in  Quebec,  the  Hon.  Mr.  Cour- 
noyer,  and  possibly  working  out  this  problem 
by  attempting  to  get  him  to  put  pressure  on 
unions  to  stop  this  intimidation  against 
workers  on  the  Ontario  side? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  did 
get  in  touch  with  the  Minister  of  Labour  and 
Manpower  of  Quebec  on  several  occasions 
already,  not  only  on  this  matter  but  on  other 
matters  as  well. 

Mr.  Roy:  By  way  of  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker,  might  I  ask  the  minister  to  give 
consideration  as  well  to  discussing  with  that 
minister  the  fact  that  Ontario  tradesmen  are 
not  allowed  to  work  in  the  Province  of 
Quebec,  whereas  the  Quebec  tradesmen  are 
allowed  to  work  in  this  province?  Would  he 
consider  discussing  that  problem  with  them, 
as  it  is  a  problem  not  only  in  Ottawa-Hull 
but  in  the  minister's  area  of  Cornwall? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  That's  right.  The  prob- 
lem exists  all  along  the  Ottawa  River,  I 
would  say.  I  have  spoken  to  the  Minister  of 
Labour  of  Quebec. 

il  think  it  is  the  intention  of  the  con- 
struction industry  commission  of  Quebec  to 
do   away  with   the   credit  system.    It  is   my 


MARCH  6,  1974 


25 


understanding  that  presently  there  are  hear- 
ings being  held  in  the  Province  of  Quebec 
and  the  Quebec  Federation  of  Labour  is,  of 
course,  opposing  it  for  perhaps  other  reasons. 
iBut  in  any  event,  we  do  correspond  and 
it  is  my  intention  to  meet  with  the  minister 
fairly  soon  to  try  to  resolve  this  problem.  It 
is  really  a  problem  which  has  existed  for 
some  time,  but  is  perhaps  more  acute  in 
recent  months. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Nickel 
Belt. 


ARBITRATION  BOARD  FOR 
CAAT  DISPUTE 

Mr.  F.  Laughren  (Nickel  Belt):  Mr. 
Speaker,  a  question,  in  the  absence  of  the 
Minister  of  Colleges  and  Universities  (Mr. 
Auld),  of  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social 
Development:  Is  the  provincial  secretary 
aware  that  a  picket  line  has  been  set  up  pro- 
testing the  makeup  of  the  Public  Service 
Arbitration  Board,  which  was  to  arbitrate  a 
dispute  between  the  Colleges'  of  Applied  Arts 
and  Technology  faculties  and  the  Council  of 
Regents  representing  the  Crown? 

Hon.  M.  Birch  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Social  Development):  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
aware  of  that,  but  I  understand  that  the 
Treasurer  has  a  report  on  that. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Well  then,  Mr.  Speaker;  if 
I  could  redirect  the  question  to  the  Treasurer? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Chairman  of  the  Management 
Board. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  He's  pre- 
pared to  answer  it. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Chairman  of  the  Manage- 
ment Board? 

An  hon.  member:  That  should  be  good. 

Mr.  Stokes:  He  is  not  the  Treasurer,  he  is 
the  Chairman  of  the  Management  Board. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Is  the  Chairman  of  the 
Management  Board  aware  of  the  picket  hne 
that  has  been  set  up  and  why  it  has  been  set 
up?  And  further,  would  he  make  a  recom- 
mendation, or  at  least  make  a  commitment, 
that  the  Public  Service  Arbitration  Board 
will  be  reconstructed  in  such  a  way  that 
there  will  be  an  appointment  from  each  side 
in  this  dispute;  and  then  that  the  chairman 
be  a  mutually-agreeable  selection,  'not  one 
appointed  by  the  government  so  that  it  is 
weighted  two  to  one  in  favour  of  the  Crown? 


Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are 
aware  of  the  fact  that  such  a  picket  line  has 
been  established  outside  of  the  Royal  York 
Hotel  where  the  meetings  were  arranged  to 
begin,  I  believe  this  morning.  Prior  to  the 
committee  convening  the  picket  line  was  es- 
tablished and  the  employees'  team  that  was  to 
discuss  the  matters  currently  in  dispute  de- 
cided they  would  not,  under  these  circum- 
stances, continue. 

Now  we,  as  the  government,  are  satisfied 
with  Judge  Anderson.  I  might  say  that  Judge 
Anderson  was  appointed  with  agreement  of 
the  CSAO  and  the  government,  and  I  am 
confident  that  he  can  solve  the  present  matter. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  are  only  a  few  minutes 
remaining  and  there  are  numerous  members 
who  want  to  ask  a  question.  I  think,  if  the 
members  will  bear  with  me,  I  will  restrict 
the  supplementaries  at  this  time.  The  hon. 
member  for  Grey-Bruce  is  next. 


NUCLEAR  ENERGY  PROGRAMME 

Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  Thank  you, 
Mr.  Speaker.  A  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Energy:  In  view  of  the  minister's  impressive 
display  of  knowledge  in  the  debate  with 
Ralph  Nader- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Roy:  I  understand  Nader  wants  to 
recycle  the  minister. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Would  the  minister  investi- 
gate, if  he  is  concerned  enough,  why  the 
Atomic  Energy  Control  Board  in  Ottawa  re- 
fuses to  meet  with  nuclear  scientists  in  the 
USA  on  a  TV  debate  to  show  the  people  the 
danger  of  radiation  and  contamination  by 
nuclear  power;  and  secondly,  will  he  tell  us 
the  wisdom  of  investing  $38  million  in  a  new 
coal  mine  in  Green  county,  Pennsylvania,  and 
consorting  with  US  Steel? 

The  minister  is  talking  about  cheap  power, 
nuclear  power;  but  a  $15  billion  programme 
is  $5  million  in  interest  today.  How  is  that 
cheap  power?  So  those  three  questions,  I 
would  like  the  minister  to  answer. 

An  hon.  member:  He  has  30  seconds. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


26 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of  En- 
ergy): Mr.  Speaker,  the  answer  to  the  first 
question,  I  would  suggest,  might  better  be 
sought  by  the  member  from  some  of  his 
friends  in  Ottawa.  I  am  certainly  not  about 
to  answer  in  this  House  for  the  emanations 
of  the  Atomic  Energy  Control  Board,  which 
is  a  federal  government  board. 

The  answer  to  the  second  question,  as  to 
why  we  invested  $38  million  in  a  coal  mine, 
is  because  we  wanted  the  coal. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Thun- 
der Bay. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Supplementary. 


Hon.  R.  Welch  (Provincial  Secretary  of 
Justice  and  Attorney  General):  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  subject  matter  of  the  hon.  member's  ques- 
tion is  still  being  investigated.  I  am  really  not 
prepared  to  expand  on  that  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Singer:  How  long  does  this  investiga- 
tion go  on? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Until  such  time  as  it  is 
completed. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 


WEEKEND  ROAD  xVIAINTENANCE 

Mr.  Stokes:  I  have  a  question  of  the  Minis- 
ter of  Natural  Resources. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  Minister  of  Energy  didn't 
look  so  good  with  Nader. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Will  the  minister  undertake  to 
fin  1  out  why  a  road  that's  under  the  re- 
sponsibility of  his  ministry  is  not  taken  care 
of  on  weekends,  namely  the  road  between 
Gull  Bay  and  Armstrong?  Has  he  had  no 
complaints  that  the  road  is  impassable  on 
many  weekends  because  the  contract  that  the 
ministry  has  now  doesn't  provide  for  week- 
end maintenance? 

Hon.  L.  Bemier  (Minister  of  Natural  Re- 
sources): Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  be  glad 
to  do  that. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Downs- 
view. 


INQUIRY  ON  BUILDING  INDUSTRY 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Attorney  General.  Is  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral now  able  to  advise  us  on  results  of  the 
police  investigation  into  the  statements  made 
by  Mr.  Ab  Shepherd,  counsel  for  the  royal 
commission  on  building,  the  inquiry  which 
is  being  conducted  by  His  Honour  Judge 
Waisberg,  concerning  gifts  made  to  senior 
civil  servants  of  the  Ontario  Housing  Corp.? 
Have  any  charges  been  laid,  or  are  there 
going  to  be  charges  laid?  Are  the  terms  of 
reference  given  to  His  Honour  Judge  Wais- 
berg going  to  be  expanded  and  is  there  go- 
ing to  be  any  further  investigation  ordered  by 
the  government  into  the  continuing  affairs  of 
the  Ontario  Housing  Corp.? 


STAFF  UNREST  AT  OAK  RIDGES 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park):  A  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Health,  Mr.  Speaker.  What 
is  the  Minister  of  Health  doing  about  the  un- 
rest in  the  staff  at  Oak  Ridges,  as  set  out  in 
a  letter  by  the  Civil  Service  Association  of 
Ontario  last  week? 

Mr.  Laughren:  Just  since  his  appointment, 
too! 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller  (Minister  of  Health):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  not  as  yet  had  an  opportunity 
to  see  that  letter,  but  I  would  be  pleased  to 
look  into  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  York- 
Forest  Hill. 


GO-URBAN  SYSTEM 

Mr.  P.  G.  Givens  (York-Forest  Hill):  Would 
the  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Com- 
munications explain  why  there  has  been  a 
delay  in  the  awarding  of  the  guideway  and 
stations  contracts  for  the  Krauss-Maffei  ex- 
periment at  the  CNE,  which  were  promised 
for  December  and  January? 

Mr.  Good:  Because  he's  the  minister  of 
the  automobile. 

Hon.  J.  R.  Rhodes  (Minister  of  Transporta- 
tion and  Communications):  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
would  be  glad  to  take  it  as  notice  and  per- 
haps answer  later. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  That's  a  good  idea. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That  s'hows  aplomb. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Sand- 
wich-Riverside. 


MARCH  6,  1974 


27 


COMPENSATION  OF  VICTIMS 
OF  SILICOSIS 

Mr.  F.  A.  Burr  (Sand\vich-Riverside):  Mr. 
Speaker,  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Labour 
regarding  the  Workmen's  Compensation 
Board. 

Has  any  agreement  yet  been  reached  with 
British  Columbia  and  Quebec  to  enable  On- 
tario victims  of  silicosis,  whose  exposure  was 
in  those  provinces,  to  be  compensated  through 
the  Ontario  Workmen's  Compensation  Board? 

Mr.  Stokes:  Good  question. 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  cannot 
say  for  sure.  Did  the  hon.  member  say 
British  Columbia? 

Mr.  Burr:  British  Columbia  and  Quebec. 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  And  Quebec.  Well,  I 
know  that  at  one  point  there  had  been  nego- 
tiations with  some  of  the  provinces  to  try  to 
compensate  victims  of  silicosis,  based  on  the 
number  of  years  or  months  that  they  have 
lived  in  one  province  or  the  other.  As  of 
late,  I  don't  think  there  has  been  any  change, 
but  it  is  my  understanding  that  the  WCB 
are  still  negotiating  with  some  of  the  prov- 
inces. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  time  for  oral  questions 
has  expired. 

Mr.  Roy:  Could  we  move  to  extend  it  about 
an  hour,  Mr.  Speaker?  We  haven't  got  any- 
thing else  to  do  this  afternoon. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  might  inform  the  hon. 
members  that  the  Clerk  has  received'  a  ques- 
tion to  the  Minister  of  Natural  Resources, 
but  the  member  who  placed  the  question  did 
not  indicate  his  name  on  the  question.  Per- 
haps he  would  so  advise  the  Clerk. 

Petitions. 
Presenting  reports. 

IHon.  Mr.  White  presented  the  Public 
Accounts,  1972-1973,  volume  two,  "Financial 
Statements  of  Crown  Corporations,  Boards 
and  Commissions,"  and  volume  three,  "Details 
of  Expenditures." 

Mr.  Biillbrook:  What  does  the  Treasurer 
think  of  the  report  of  the  Ontario  Economic 
Council? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow  presented  the  report  of  the 
Public  Service  Superannuation  Board  for  the 
year  ended  March  31,  1973. 


Mr.  Lewis:  They'll  never  publish  another 
report  like  that,  now  that  they're  in  his 
ministry. 

Hon.  J.  W.  Snow  (Minister  of  Government 
Services):  The  member  had  better  read  those 
before  endorsing  them. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That  would  be  critical. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Motions. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler  moves  that  the  standing 
committees  of  the  House  for  the  present 
session  be  appointed  as  follows: 

II.  Procedural  affairs  committee. 

2.  Administration  of  justice  committee. 
Committees  1  and  2,  combined  under  the 

chairmanship  of  the  chairman  of  the  adminis- 
tration of  justice  committee,  will  function  as 
the  private  bills  committee. 

3.  Social  development  committee. 

4.  Resources  development  committee. 

5.  Miscellaneous  estimates  committee. 

6.  Public  accounts  committee. 

7.  Regulations  committee. 

Which  said  committees  shall  severally  be 
empowered  to  examine  and  inquire  into  all 
such  matters  and  things  as  may  be  referred 
to  them  by  the  House,  provided  that  all 
boards  and  commissions  are  hereby  referred 
to  committees  No.  1  to  4  in  accordance  with 
the  policy  areas  indicated  by  the  titles  of  the 
said  committees. 

Public  accounts  for  the  last  fiscal  year  are 
hereby  referred  to  the  public  accounts  com- 
mittee and  all  regulations  to  the  regulations 
committee. 

All  standing  committees  shall  report  from 
time  to  time  their  observations  and  opinions 
on  the  matters  referred  to  them,  with  the 
power  to  send  for  persons,  papers  and 
records. 

That  there  be  no  duplication  of  member- 
ship among  committees  No.  1  to  4  inclusive, 
or  between  committees  No.  5  to  7  inclusive. 

That  substitutions  be  permitted  on  any 
committee  while  considering  estimates  re- 
ferred to  it,  provided  that  notice  of  the 
substitution  is  given  to  the  chairman  of  the 
committee  prior  to  commencement  of  the 
meeting. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  just  want 
to  speak  briefly  on  the  motion.  We're  aware 
that,  on  the  recommendation  of  the  Camp 
commission,  an  additional  whip  has  been 
provided  for  each  of  the  parties  with  the 
understanding  there  is  going  to  be  a  consider- 
able increase,  if  we  follow  the  recommenda- 


28 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


tion  of  the  Camp  commission,  in  the  work  of 
the  committees,  something  that  is,  in  my 
view,  desirable. 

The  point  is  that  these  whips  are  presently 
available.  Their  services  will,  I  hope,  show 
an  improvement  in  the  work  of  these  com- 
mittees during  this  session. 

In  specific  reference  to  the  work  of  the 
committees,  I  would  have  this  to  say.  To 
begin  with,  the  regulations  committee  has 
been  shown  to  be  completely  useless.  The 
terms  of  reference  that  have  been  laid  down 
by  the  majority  on  that  committee  have  for- 
bidden the  members  to  examine  into  the  use- 
fulness of  the  regulations.  Their  application 
is  only  as  to  whether  the  statutes  to  which 
they  refer  have  specific  authority  for  the 
promulgating  of  regulations. 

I  think  you're  aware,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
that  committee  has  been  essentially  function- 
less.  I  stand  to  be  corrected,  but  I  believe 
that  it  meets  only  sufficiently  often  so  that 
the  chairman  would  get  the  additional  in- 
demnity associated  with  it.  In  my  view,  that 
committee  should  have  its  terms  of  reference 
improved,  amended  and  changed  so  that,  in 
fact,  it  can  review  the  law-making  powers 
that  apparently  go  to  the  government  with 
the  passage  of  certain  statutes  and  that  show 
themselves  in  the  formulation  of  regulations. 

We're  aware  in  many  areas  that  the  lack 
of  regulations  prohibits  and  retards  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  concepts  and  principles  of 
the  laws  passed  by  this  Legislature.  This  ap- 
parently is  a  matter  of  policy  on  the  part 
of  the  government,  particularly  in  the  estab- 
lishment of  such  things  as  a  new  welfare 
policy.  The  Minister  of  Community  and 
Social  Services  (Mr.  Brunelle)  is  aware,  I'm 
sure,  that  the  postponement  of  the  establish- 
ment of  these  regulations  has,  in  fact,  nulli- 
fied the  decisions  taken  by  this  House  with 
regard  to  certain  programmes  that  he  himself 
has  put  before  us.  I  would  say  to  you,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  we  should  not  approve  the 
establishment  of  a  regulations  committee 
unless  its  terms  of  reference  are  brought  up 
to  date  so  that  it  can  be  useful. 

The  second  thing  I  would  like  to  refer  to  is 
the  fact  that  we  in  this  Legislature  are  going 
to  be  concerned  not  only  with  important 
legislation  pertaining  to  education,  but  also 
with  far-reaching  and  important  legislation 
pertaining  to  health  services.  In  both  of  these 
particularly  important  ministries,  spending  by 
far  the  largest  share  of  our  provincial  budget, 
there  are  going  to  be  new  pieces  of  legisla- 
tion brought  forward,  compendiums  and 
omnibuses  of  old  legislation  with  many  new 
principles  involved. 


An  hon.  member:  Omnibi! 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Omnibi?  Pardon  me!  If 
we  are  going  to  have  our  work  in  this  Legis- 
lature restricted  by  the  fact  that  important 
legislation,  not  the  least  of  which  is  the  pro- 
posed legislation  governing  the  negotiations 
between  teachers  and  school  boards,  is  going 
to  be  channelled  into  a  bottleneck  in  a  single 
committee,  which  is  apparently  going  to  have 
to  deal  with  much  more  important  legislation 
than  any  other  committee,  then  the  associated 
public  hearings  will  be  inadequate. 

I  personally  feel,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  we 
should  establish  a  committee  on  education, 
and  that  it  is  a  serious  matter  indeed  that 
our  rules  have  not  provided  for  this  over  the 
last  few  years.  I  have  spoken  about  this  be- 
fore, but  this  year  it  is  particularly  necessary, 
when  the  school  administration  statutes  are 
going  to  be  put  together,  when  the  bills 
pertaining  to  teacher-board  negotiations  will 
undoubtedly  have  lengthy  and  important 
public  hearings. 

Although  a  health  disciplines  Act  is  not 
referred  to  in  the  Speech  from  the  Throne 
it  is  expected  to  be  brought  forward'.  Surely 
we  would  be  wise  indeed  if  we  made  an 
amendment  now  to  the  particular  motion  that 
the  House  leader  has  put  before  us,  setting 
up  committees  which  could  meet  concurrently 
to  handle  the  tremendous  load  of  important 
legislation  which  will  be  put  before  us. 

I  would  like,  further,  to  suggest  that  utiliz- 
ing Wednesdays  for  committee  work  can  be 
justified  only  if,  in  fact,  we  are  prepared  as  a 
Legislature  to  send  a  far  higher  percentage 
of  bills  to  standing  committee  so  that  the  com- 
munity at  large,  and  experts  in  particular ,- 
can  bring  forward  their  owti  views  to  the 
members  of  the  Legislature  who  have  special 
committee  responsibilities.  We  have  been 
equipped  with  additional  facihties,  party  by 
party,  to  accept  these  responsibilities. 

We  are  going  to  have  legislation  which  will 
fall  particularly  heavily  on  one  of  these  com- 
mittees—the social  development  committee.  I 
would  suggest  to  the  House  leader  that,  rather 
than  have  an  amendment  now  and  a  debate 
on  it,  he  might  very  well  consider  taking  the 
steps  that  I  believe  will  have  to  be  taken 
some  time  during  the  session  to  establish  an 
additional  committee  to  handle  the  volume 
of  work  expected  to  be  sent  to  them. 

Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  make 
just  one  comment  in  one  area.  I  think  much 
of  what  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  said 
is  true.  It  may  well  be  we  are  moving  to- 
v^ards  the  position  where  we  will  be  dealing 
vdth  much  more  of  the  legislation  outside  of 


MARCH  6,  1974 


29 


the  House  than  we  had  in  the  past.  I  have 
arjTued  each  year  that  we  should  have  free 
substitution  on  committees,  not  only  in  the 
areas  of  dealing  with  estimates  but  also  in 
dealing  with  legislation. 

It  must  be  obvious  to  the  government  that 
the  opposition,  because  of  its  numbers,  can't 
have  a  sufficient  number  of  people  in  any  one 
c^mmittee  at  any  given  time.  Therefore,  if 
there  is  a  bill  before  a  committee  that  has 
the  responsible  member  not  on  the  com- 
mittee, it  is  extremely  difficult  for  him  to  be 
there  and  to  actively  take  part  in  the  dis- 
cussion. I  have  never  understood'  why  the 
government  hasn't  agreed  to  allow  for  free 
substitution  on  any  committees,  providing  that 
substitution  is  made  prior  to  the  beginning 
of  the  sitting  on  the  day  in  which  it  is  to  be 
applicable. 

I  know  last  year  when  I  raised  it  the 
Premier  indicated,  as  did  the  House  leader 
of  the  government,  there  was  a  possibility 
that  that  would  be  done.  It  wasn't  done.  It 
has  caused  us,  and  I  am  sure  it  has  caused 
the  ofiicial  opposition,  considerable  aggrava- 
tion. It  has  even  caused  the  government 
aggravation.  Why  not  extend  that  section 
dealing  with  substitution  to  include  substitu- 
tion in  the  committees  for  any  purpose,  pro- 
vided it  is  done  prior  to  the  beginning  of  the 
sitting  on  the  day  during  which  the  substitu- 
tion is  applicable?  Then  we  won't  have  the 
hassle,  time  after  time,  of  worrying  and 
trying  to  get  the  appropriate  person  to  the 
committee  to  dteal  wdth  the  fegislation. 

It  seems  to  me  to  make  a  lot  of  sense.  I 
don't  understand  what  possible  problems  it 
could  bring  about.  I  would  ask  the  House 
leader  to  accept  that  very  simple  change  to 
what  he  is  proposing  in  order  that  we  can 
have  a  more  responsive  and  a  more  satis- 
factory working  of  the  various  committees 
dealing  with  matters  that  are  of  importance 
to  the  public. 

Mr.  BuUbrook:  Normally,  Mr.  Speaker,  this 
is  a  routine  matter,  and  it  goes  without  too 
much  debate.  But  during  the  course  of  the 
remarks  by  the  hon.  member  for  Wentworth, 
my  colleague  from  Waterloo  North  (Mr. 
Good)  said  to  me:  "Do  they  want  the  stand- 
ing committee  system  to  work  or  do  they  not 
want  it  to  work?" 

Mr.  Deans:   Who?  Me?  No,  no. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  No,  the  government.  I 
speak  of  the  government. 

Mr.  Deans:  Oh,  I'm  sorry. 


Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  want  to  say  to  you,  Mr. 
Speaker,  without  reservation,  they  don't  want 
it  to  work. 

I  stood  in  this  House  some  months  ago 
and  pointed  out  that,  in  1966,  44  per  cent  of 
all  legislation  went  to  standing  committees. 
We  had  the  public  come  before  us  and  make 
significant  input.  Think  of  the  Landlord  and 
Tenant  Act;  think  of  the  Expropriations  Act, 
the  Corporations  Act,  the  University  of  To- 
ronto Act;  where  we  had  the  public— lay 
people  and  experts— come  before  us  and  assist 
us  in  passing  legislation.  And  the  legislation 
was   all   to  the  better  because   of  it, 

Mr.  Singer:  And  Arthur  Wishart  encour- 
aged it, 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  And  Arthur  Wishart,  who 
was  then  Attorney  General,  encouraged  that 
type  of  public  participation.  Now,  I  want  to 
tell  the  House  what  happened  under  this 
Premier,  In  the  first  year  of  the  Davis  regime, 
nine  per  cent  of  all  legislation  went  to  stand- 
ing committees.  Let  me  tell  you  what  hap- 
pened last  year, 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Shameful. 

Mr.  Roy:  They  should  be  ashamed. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Three  per  cent  of  all  bills 
tabled  in  this  House  went  to  a  standing  com- 
mittee. The  fact  of  the  matter  is— and  the 
answer  to  the  member  for  Wentworth  is— 
the  government  doesn't  want  the  standing 
committees  to  work.  They  don't  want  any 
public  input.  What  they  want,  under  the  new 
superstructure  of  horizontal  development  put 
forward  by  COGP,  is  the  development  of 
some  type  of  think  tank.  The  now  Attorney 
General,  as  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social 
Development,  certainly  did  not  want,  in  con- 
nection with  any  of  his  legislative  respon- 
sibilities, any  public  input. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:   That's  irresponsible. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  That  is  correct.  He  doesn't 
want  it.  He  wants  to  sit  vdth  Wright  and 
these  intellectuals  upstairs  and  think  in  the 
abstract. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  One  hundred  and  seven- 
teen of  us  that  have  been  elected. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Well  listen,  let  me  tell  the 
House  about  the  hospital  situation  in  Sarnia. 
I  wrote  to  him  about  it  and  I  never  even  had 
the  courtesy  of  a  reply  from  him,  because 
when  it  comes  to  something  that  is  very 
practical  he  doesn't  know  what  is  going  on, 
and  I  really  worry  that  the  justice  portfolio 


30 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


might  become  inert,  as  social  development 
did  under  him.  We  had  wonderful  Attorneys 
General  here.  The  minister  knows  that— 

Mr.  Singer:  One  has  to  go  back  a  couple 
of  years  to  find  them. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  —the  executive  assistant  to 
the  Premier  was  the  best  we  ever  had  and 
he  was  the  one  who  wanted  this  public— 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  The  member  is  being 
very  personal. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  am  not  being  personal. 
I've  never  been  personal  with  the  minister  in 
my  life.  I  don't  even  know  his  name;  I 
haven't  called  him  by  name. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  The  member  is  far  too 
subjective. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  called  him  the  Provincial 
Secretary  for  Social  Development.  Is  that 
personal? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  The  member  is  being 
smart. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Certainly  I  am  being  smart. 
I'm  giving  the  minister  the  figures. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I'm  giving  him  the  figures 
that  he  knows  about. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Make  the  point. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Three  per  cent  of  all  legis- 
lation went  to  standing  committees.  He 
doesn't  want  the  public  to  be  involved. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Right. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  He  wants  that  superstruc- 
ture system— 

Hon.  G.  A.  Kerr  (Solicitor  General):  The 
member  can  ask  for  it  to  go  to  standing 
committee. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:   —that  took  away,  for  ex- 
ample,  from  the   cabinet,   a  very  intelligent 
man- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Roy:  That  is  embarrassing  to  the 
Attorney  General. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  —who  was  sterilized  by 
them. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Roy:   He  is  right  on,  Mr.  Speaker. 


Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  don't  know  why  we  go 
through  this  charade  of  establishing  these 
committees  if  the  government  is  not  going  to 
have  the  legislation  referred  to  them.  Heark- 
en back,  if  you  will,  in  a  moment  of  seri- 
ousness, if  that's  possible,  to  the  planning 
legislation  that  was  debated  in  this  House 
after  being  brought  in  at  the  eleventh  hour 
—very  significant  legislation  as  far  as  develop- 
ment in  the  Province  of  Ontario  is  concern- 
ed. Did  the  minister  have  anything  to  do 
with  that?  I  don't  think  he  did,  no. 

Mr.  Roy:  He  wouldn't  understand  it. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  But  if  you  recall,  we  had  to 
attempt  to  digest  that  legislation  over  a  two- 
day  period  without  any  issuance  of  any  kind. 
It  was  run  through  by  a  parliamentary  as- 
sistant. I  remember  my  colleague  from 
Downsview  sitting  here  and  writing,  in  an 
extemporaneous  fashion,  amendments  to  the 
bill  which  were  accepted  by  the  parlia- 
mentary assistant.  Why  not  give  us  the  op- 
portunity of  taking  our  time,  going  down  be- 
fore a  standing  committee?  Let  the  lawyers 
let  the  accountants  who  helped  us  in  the 
Corporation  Act,  assist  us.  Let  the  lay  people 
who  assisted  us  in  the  Landlord  and  Tenant 
Act  assist  us  again. 

An  hon.  member:  Let  the  public  assist  us. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Let  the  public  have  an  op- 
portunity, as  they  do  in  Ottawa  at  the  pres- 
ent time,  to  participate  in  the  legislative 
process. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  is  fact,  as  I  recall  it,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  the  Planning  and  Development 
Act  did  go  to  committee. 

Mr.  Singer:  No  it  didn't. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Yes,  with  the  Treasurer  there. 

Mr.  Singer:  Not  to  standing  committee.  It 
was  here,  the  committee  of  the  whole  House. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  committee  of  the  whole 
House  was  here. 

Mr.  Good:  No— the  amendments  to  the 
Planning  Act. 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  certainly  one  of  those 
Planning  Acts  went  to  the  committee. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  It  might  have  been  one  of 
the  three  per  cent. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Look  ahead  fellows,  look 
ahead. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  think  I'm  right,  Mr.  Speaker. 
I  think  I  am  correct. 


MARCH  6,  1974 


31 


Mr.  Roy:  I  am  telling  the  member  he  is 
correct. 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  is  telling  me  I  am?  If  the 
hon.  member  for  Ottawa  East  is  telling 
me  I  am  correct,  clearly  I  am.  I  think  that  in 
a  sense  puts  the  problem  in  a  nutshell.  It 
isn't  a  matter  of  the  percentages,  because  it 
is  very  rarely,  if  the  opposition  parties  put 
the  pressure  on,  that  the  government  resists  a 
bill  going  to  committee.  There  are  not  that 
many  bills  which  it  refuses  to  send  to  com- 
mittee and  I  concede  that.  The  problem  is 
that  the  government  sends  them  to  com- 
mittee at  the  last  minute  when  there  is  ab- 
solutely no  time  to  mobilize  the  kind  of 
public  contribution  which  would  make  the 
committee  process  valid. 

My  colleague  from  Windsor  West  (Mr. 
Bounsall)  reminded  me  of  the  Workmen's 
Compensation  Act  amendments,  which  were 
very  crucial  amendments  I'ast  year.  They  hap- 
pened to  come  up  for  second  reading  on  a 
Friday.  Only  because  we  had  the  weekend 
were  we  able  to  arrange  for  any  representa- 
tives from  the  unions  or  from  the  injured 
workmen's  consultants  to  appear  before  the 
committee  on  the  Monday  and  make  repre- 
sentations. 

There  is  a  serious  tendency  developing  in 
the  government— in  fact,  it's  kind  of  a  critical 
failine— to  bring  in  legislation  sufficiently  late 
or  sufficiently  haphazardly  so  that  the  com- 
mittee work  is  compressed  into  a  matter  of 
days  without  any  adequate  public  notifica- 
tion at  all.  That's  because  the  government 
doesn't  see  the  committee  system  as  a  valid 
system.  It  sees  it  as  a  ritual  appendage  to 
the  Legislature.  If  the  government  saw  it  as 
a  valid  system,  this  motion  today  would  have 
in  it  provision  for  the  kind  of  support  stajBF 
for  the  committee  system  which  would  make 
it  work. 

I  want  to  express  something  else  that  isn't 
often  expressed.  I  saw  Douglas  Fisher  under 
the  gallery,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  as  I  recall, 
the  Camp  commission  has  been  sitting  now 
for  something  more  than  a  year;  is  that  fair? 
I  think  it's  something  more  than  a  year;  sig- 
nificantly more  than  a  year.  It  bothers  me  that 
we  come  to  yet  another  year  and  yet  another 
Throne  Speech  debate  and  we  are  still  trap- 
ped in  the  old  system  which  all  of  us  find 
so  blessed  rigid  and  frustrating.  Nothing  has 
changed  in  the  operation  of  this  agency  and 
its  adjuncts;  nothing. 

The  business  of  the  House  is  still  chaotic. 
The  committee  system  won't  work  any  better 
now  than  it  did  before.  The  legislation  isn't 
guaranteed  in  advance.  All  of  the  things  that 


we  presumed  would  flow  from  the  Camp 
commission  have  not  yet  flowed.  My  colleague 
from  Thunder  Bay  (Mr.  Stokes)  tells  me  that 
the  commission  is  now  dealing  with  the  oper- 
ation of  the  Legislature  and  that  doubtless 
the  next  report  \vill  have  something  to  say 
about  the  way  in  which  this  peculiar  structure 
functions.  All  right,  but  we  have  another 
whole  year  on  the  old  basis  and  that  really 
cripples  the  parliamentary  system  around  this 
place. 

The  House  leader  brings  in  this  setup  of 
committees  again;  it  is  absolutely  no  different 
from  the  previous  year.  Everybody  knows  in 
advance  what  an  artificial,  frustrated  non- 
sensical piece  of  structure  it  is  and  we'll  go 
through  the  same  confrontation  in  the  House, 
the  last  minute  ordeals,  all  the  rest  of  it. 
The  simple  truth  about  it  is,  apart  from  the 
indifference  and  contempt  that  it  tends  to 
show  for  some  opposition  members— and,  I 
may  say,  for  backbench  government  members 
who  would  like  to  participate— what's  really 
so  frustrating  about  it,  the  truth  that  lies  be- 
hind it  is  that  the  government  doesn't  see  the 
Legislature  of  Ontario  as  an  open  forum  to 
which  the  public  should  have  access. 

It  is  completely  indifferent  as  a  govern- 
ment to  the  emergence  of  public  groups,  com- 
munity-centred groups,  pressure  groups,  all 
over  Ontario.  It  forces  them  to  mass  at  Maple 
Leaf  Gardens  or  on  the  lawns  of  Queen's 
Park  because  there  is  no  systematic  funnel 
provided  by  this  House  for  the  expression  of 
citizen  discontent.  None  at  all.  Only  at  the 
11th  hour,  under  extreme  pressure,  will  the 
government  ever  allow  a  group  of  people  to 
gather  to  voice  their  views.  But  on  really 
contentious  issues,  whether  it's  land-use 
planning,  regional  government— the  regional 
government  bills  didn't  go  to  standing  com- 
mittees for  examination;  none  of  them— or  the 
Workmen's  Compensation  Act,  for  those 
things  there  is  never  time  because  the  gov- 
ernment doesn't  see  the  public  dimension  of 
our  role. 

That's  the  problem  with  this  Legislature. 
It's  such  a  kind  of  self-centred  apparatus;  so 
much  is  focused  inward  and  it  so  little  appre- 
ciates that  there  is  a  world  outside.  This  little 
resolution  today  simply  reinforces  all  the  old 
patterns.  This  is  a  privileged'  club.  We  open 
our  doors  only  selectively.  We'll  not  allow 
the  public  to  come  as  of  right.  They  will  only 
be  here  intermittently  by  invitation.  We  will 
not  give  to  the  members  of  the  Legislature 
the  kind  of  authority  to  examine  legislation 
which  they  should  have.  We  don't  believe  in 
public  accessibility  to  the  political  process. 
We    see    ourselves    as    the    perpetuation    of 


32 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


divine  right,  occasionally  going  to  the  electo- 
rate for  approval  but  largely  making  decisions 
independent  of  their  pressure,  or  forcing  them 
to  express  their  pressure  in  the  most  extreme 
fashion  through  public  demonstration  rather 
than  the  channels  of  normal  debate. 

It  will  catch  up  with  the  government.  Its 
abuse  of  the  process  doesn't  matter.  The 
government  has  got  over  70  seats;  the  opposi- 
tion has  40,  or  41.  But  the  public  will  catch 
up  with  the  government  because  it  can  frus- 
trate their  interest  in  social  issues  only  so 
long  before  it  collapses  around  its  ears— 
whether  it  is  North  Pickering  or  whether  it 
is  Arnprior,  or  whether  it  is  transmission 
corridors,  or  whether  it  is  Highway  402,  or 
whether  it  is  the  Algonquin  Wildlands 
League. 

They  are  all  forced  to  work  out  there  be- 
cause the  government  closed  this  process  up 
to  them  which  should  be  theirs,  inchiding,  let 
me  remind  the  minister,  the  incorporation  of 
the  town  of  Durham.  That  is  going  to  be  his 
personal  downfall,  because  even  the  Tories 
in  Durham  were  not  consulted  in  advance  of 
what  was  done  in  the  regional  municipality; 
nor  have  they  had  any  access  to  the  Legis- 
lature because  he  would  not  allow  them  to 
go  to  standing  committee,  so  they  are  forced 
to  do  battle  in  the  courts. 

Does  the  minister  think  the  use  of  the 
public  in  that  fashion— to  force  the  public  to 
demonstrations  and  to  the  courts— is  the 
proper  use  of  the  parliamentary  process?  The 
government  believes  in  confrontation;  it  has 
become  ad'dicted  to  confrontation.  We,  on 
the  other  hand,  believe  in  moderation.  We 
believe  that  a  more  conciliatory  approach 
can  be  taken. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  What  a  facetious  state- 
ment that  is. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  it  had  a  faint  ring  of 
unction  about  it,  Mr.  Speaker,  which  I  caught 
myself— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Talk  about  a  credibility 

gap- 
Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  and  a  little  problem  of 

credibility.  Nonetheless,  that  is  my  problem. 

Mine  at  least  is  solvable;  the  government's  is 

beyond   repair— and   this  resolution   shows  it 

yet  again. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker  I  have 
listened,  of  course,  with  interest  today.  It  is  a 
little  early  in  the  session  for  me  to  allow 
the  members  across  the  way  to  raise  any 
hackles  on  the  back  of  my  neck,  but  I 
would  like  to  say  to  the  leader  of  the  Liberal 


Party  in  regard  to  his  remarks  on  the  stand- 
ing  committee    on   regulations,   that   it   is    a 
statutory  requirement- 
Mr.  Roy:  Who  makes  statutes? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Now  just  a  moment, 
will  the  member  let  me  conclude? 

Mr.  Roy:  Okay,  go  ahead. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  That  particular  situa- 
tion will  have  to  be  changed  that  way.  I 
assure  him  that  I  will  take  the  suggestions 
that  have  been  made  today  under  considera- 
tion and  we  will  bring  together  at  the  time 
of  the  commission  on  the  Legislature's  report, 
those  matters  which  we  feel  are  necessary  for 
the  proper  functioning  of  this  Legislature. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  say  right  now  that 
as  far  as  this  government  is  concerned  I 
think  the  remarks  that  were  made  by  the 
leader  of  the  NDP  are  totally  "facatious."  I 
don't  think,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't  think— 

Mr.  Lewis:  Point  of  order,  point  of  order; 
point  of  personal  privilege— 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  I  don't  think,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  any  government  has— 

Mr.  Lewis:  That  may  be  fallacious,  or  that 
may  be  facetious,  but  it  is  not  "facatious." 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  —sent  more  of  its  min- 
isters and  its  committees  out  across  this  prov- 
ince to  communicate  with  the  people;  and 
therefore  his  argument  falls  away  short. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  go  back  to  the  electors 
of  Durham,  but  they  won't  give  the  minister 
a   vote;    they   won't   give   him    a   vote. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Nor  do  we  allow  our- 
selves to  get  trapped  into  the  sort  of  organ- 
izational  trap   that  the  leader  of  the   NDP 


Interjection    by    an    hon.    member. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  And  let  me  say  a  word 
about  the  town  of  Durham.  I  am  continually 
and  totally  accessible  to  the  people  in  Dur- 
ham, which  they  know- 
Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  is  not  accessible; 
they  have  rejected  him. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  —each  and  every  week 
of  the  year.  If  the  member  wants  to  continue 
with  his  kind  of  nonsense  they  will  know 
he  is  lying  like  other  people  I  know  as  well. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Resign. 


MARCH  6,  1974 


33 


Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is  all 
I  have  to  say.  But  I  offer  my  co-operation 
on  behalf  of  the  government  in  the  sugges- 
tions that  were  made. 

Mr.  Lewis:  There  go  the  hackles. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  minister  made  the  same  re- 
marks last  year— last  year  he  told  us  the 
same  thing  about— 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  electors  of  Durham  will 
do  him  in. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Don't  worry. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  am  not— 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  am  not  certain  that  I  heard 
the  comments  of  the  hon.  House  leader  but— 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  is  who  they  vote  for  that 
worries  me. 

Mr.  Speaker:  But  I  think  if  there  had  been 
something  wrong  the  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough West  would  have  risen  on  a  point  of 
order. 

Those  in  favour  of  the  motion  will  please 
say  "aye." 

Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion,  the  "ayes"  have  it. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler  moves  that  a  select 
committee  of  13  members  be  appointed  to 
prepare  and  report  with  all  convenient 
despatch  a  list  of  members  to  compose  the 
standing  committees  ordered  by  the  House, 
such  committee  to  be  composed  as  follows: 

Mr.  Carmthers.  chairman;  Messrs.  Allan, 
Deans.  Beckett,  Henderson,  Hodgson  (Vic- 
toria-Haliburton),  MacBeth,  Maeck,  Newman 
(Windsor-Walkerville),  Smith  (Simcoe  East), 
Stokes,  Worton  and  Yakabuski. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will 
move  the  adjournment  of  the  House. 

Mr.  Singer:  What  about  the  business  of 
bills  and  stuff? 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  were  dealing  with  mo- 
tions. Introduction  of  bills. 

Mr.  Roy:  If  the  government  doesn't  have 
any  bills  ready,  we  do. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Are  there  bills  to  introduce? 

Mr.  Singer:  Yes,  I  have  a  bill,  Mr.  Speaker. 


Mr.   Speaker:   The  hon.   member  for  Sud- 
bury was  on  his  feet  with  a  bill. 


DENTURE  THERAPISTS  ACT 

Mr.  Germa  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in- 
tituled, An  Act  to  amend  the  Denture  Thera- 
pists Act,  1972. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  M.  C.  Germa  (Sudboiry):  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  amendment  removes  the  dental  hygienists 
and  the  dental  technicians  from  the  Denture 
Therapists  Licensing  Board  and  replaces 
them  with  two  more  denture  therapists,  in- 
creasing the  number  of  denture  therapists  on 
the  board  to  four. 

In  section  2,  the  amendment  removes  a  re- 
quirement that  the  denture  therapists  work 
under  the  supervision  of  a  dental  surgeon. 
It  would  also  allow  the  denture  therapists  to 
deal  directly  with  the  public,  but  only  where 
the  patient  can  produce  a  certificate  of  oral 
health  signed  by  a  dental  surgeon  or  a  legally 
qualified  medical  practitioner. 

In  section  3,  the  limitation  period  for  com- 
mencing a  proceeding  under  clause  (b)  of 
subsection  1  of  section  16  of  the  Act  is 
changed  from  two  years  to  one  year. 

And  in  section  4,  the  amendment  provides 
that  the  Lieutenant  Governor  in  Council  may 
make  regulations  setting  fees  to  be  charged 
by  denture  therapists. 


DENTISTRY  ACT 

Mr.  Genna  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in- 
tituled. An  Act  to  amend  the  Dentistry  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Germa:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill  is  com- 
plementary to  the  Denture  Theraoists  Amend- 
ment Act,  1974,  which  would  allow  denture 
therapists  to  deal  directly  with  the  public. 


MEDICAL  COMPLAINTS  PROCEDURES 
ACT 

Mr.  Singer  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled,  the  Medical  Complaints  Procedures 
Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of 
this  bill  is  to  provide  a  system  in  the  Prov- 
ince of  Ontario  whereby  people  who  believe 
that  they  have  complaints  about  medical  pro- 
cedures   affecting   them    are    going    to    have 


34 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


available  to  them,  when  this  bill  passes,  a 
board  which  can  review  them. 

The  boaid  will  consist  of  medical  people, 
legal  people,  members  of  the  public.  The 
board  will  have  the  power  to  review  and 
suggest  remedies  and/or  award  damages. 
There  will  be  reasonable  limitation  periods 
for  these  complaints  to  be  brought  forward. 
There  will  be  a  panel  of  doctors  maintained 
who  will  be  available  to  give  independent 
evidence  when  matters  of  this  sort  cpme  up, 
and  who  will  be  available  to  those  people 
who  believe  they  have  complaints  to  make. 

These  suggestions,  Mr.  Speaker,  are  not 
arrived  at  lightly,  but  emanate  from  a  series 


of  debates  in  the  estimates  of  the  Minister  of 
Health  over  several  years.  The  ministry  has 
done  nothing  in  this  regard  at  all.  The  situ- 
ation is  difficult  and  presents  great  hazards 
to  many  members  of  the  pubhc  who  have  no 
way  of  coping  with  what  they  feel  on  occa- 
sion are  very  serious  personal  problems.  The 
bill  will  remedy  many  of  these  difficulties. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Orders  of  the  day. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler  moves  the  adjournment 
of  the  House. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjourned  at  3:25  o'clock,  p.m. 


MARCH  6,  1974  35 


CONTENTS 

Wednesday,  March  6,  1974 

Withdrawal  of  teachers'  services,  question  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  15 

Environmental    impact   of   public    works,    questions    of   Mr.    DavK:    Mr.    R.    F.    Nixon, 

Mr.   Lewis,   Mr.   Cassidy,   Mr.   Bounsall   15 

Withdrawal  of  teachers'  services,  questions  of  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Foulds, 

Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  Deacon,  Mr.  Boimsall  17 

Cost  of  land  for  housing,  questions  of  Mr.  Handleman:   Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon, 

Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  Singer,  Mr.  Good   20 

North  Pickering  development,  questions  of  Mr.  Handleman:   Mr.   Lewis,  Mr.   Deacon, 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  21 

Seminar  on  maintaining  non-union  status,  questions  of  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Lewis  22 

Automotive  industry  overtime  permits,  question  of  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  B.  Newman  23 

Price  review  of  farm  supplies  and  equipment,  questions  of  Mr.  Stewart:  Mr.  MacDonald, 

Mr.    Reid    23 

Inquiry  on  building  industry,  questions  of  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Roy  24 

Arbitration    board    for    CAAT    dispute,    questions    of  Mrs.    Birch    and    Mr.    Winkler: 

Mr.    Laughren    25 

Nuclear  energy  programme,  questions  of  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Sargent  25 

Weekend  road  maintenance,  questions  of  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Stokes  26 

Inquiry  on  building  industry,  questions  of  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Singer  26 

Staff  unrest  at  Oak  Ridges,  question  of  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Shidman  26 

GO-Urban  system,  question  of  Mr.  Rhodes,  Mr.  Givens  26 

Compensation  of  victims  of  silicosis,  question  of  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Burr  27 

Presenting  report,  Public  Accoimts:  Mr.  White  27 

Presenting  report,  Public  Service  Superannuation  Board:  Mr.  Snow  27 

Motion  to  appoint  standing  committees,  Mr.  Winkler,  agreed  to  27 

Motion  to  appoint  select  committee  re  standing  committees,  Mr.  Winkler,  agreed  to  33 

Denture  Therapists  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Germa,  first  reading  33 

Dentistry  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Germa,  first  reading  33 

Medical  Complaints  Procedures  Act,  bill  intituled,  Mr.  Singer,  first  reading  33 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Winkler,  agreed  to  34 


No.  3 


Ontario 


Hegfelature  of  Ontario 


OFFICIAL  REPORT  —  DAILY  EDITION 


Fourth  Session  of  the  Twenty-Ninth  Legislature 


Thursday,  March  7,  1974 


Speaker:  Honourable  Allan  Edward  Renter 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARLIAMENT  BUILDINGS,   TORONTO 

1974 


Price  per  session,  $10.00.  Address,  Clerk  of  the  House,  Parliament  Bldgs.,  Toronto 


CONTENTS 


(Daily  index  of  proceedings  appears  at  back  of  this  issue.) 


39 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  2  o'clock,  p.m. 
Prayers. 

Mr.  B.  Newman  ( Windsor- Walkerville ) : 
Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  east  gallery  we  have 
guests  from  the  fine  city  of  Windsor  and  the 
great  riding  of  Windsor- Walkerville. 

An  hon.  member:  Good!  Good! 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  They  are  the  first  school 
to  visit  the  fourth  session  of  this  Parliament. 
They  are  55  fine  students  from  grades  7  and 
8  of  the  Ada  C.  Richards  School,  who  are 
accompanied  by  their  principal,  Mr.  Pyke; 
two  members  of  the  staff,  Mr.  Noble  and  Mr. 
Thompson;  and  two  parents,  Mrs.  Baia  and 
Mrs.  Shelson.  I  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Legis- 
lature extends  them  a  cordial  welcome. 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  Mr. 
Speaker- 
Mr.  J.  H.  Jessiman  (Fort  William):  Mr. 
Speaker,  may  I  introduce  to  you,  also  in  the 
east  gallery,  the  fourth  such  delegation  that 
has  appeared  here  in  this  Legislature  from 
the  great  city  of  Thunder  Bay,  the  grade  8 
students,  75  in  number,  from  the  Westmount 
Public  School  in  the  south  ward  of  the  city 
of  Thunder  Bay. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  gives  me  a 
good  deal  of  pleasure  to  welcome,  from  the 
riding  of  Sudbury  East,  some  33  students 
from  Ecole  St.  Matthieu,  a  bilingual  school 
from  that  great  riding— I  reiterate,  that  great 
riding— of  Sudbury  East. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  And  its 
great  member. 

Mr.   Speaker:   Statements  by  the  ministry. 


ROUTE  OF  PETROLEUM  PIPELINE 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development):  Mr.  Speaker,  when 
the  government  of  Canada  announced  that  a 
pipeline  would  be  necessary  to  move  petro- 
leum products  to  Quebec  and  the  eastern 
markets,    it   stated    its    intention    to   build    a 


Thursday,  March  7,  1974 

pipeline  across  southern  Ontario  from  Sarnia 
to  Montreal. 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  Who 
won? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Several  ministers  have 
quite  properly  expressed  legitimate  concerns 
over  the  possible- 
Mr.    M.    Cassidy    (Ottawa    Gentre):    They 
gave  in. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  —adverse  effects  that 
such  construction  would  have,  particularly  on 
the  high  quality  agricultural  lands  that  would 
be  in  the  path  of  the  pipeline.  They  have 
been  joined  by  a  number  of  concerned  groups 
of  citizens,  and  at  least  two  federal  cabinet 
ministers.  The  consensus  of  these  concerned 
ministers,  groups  and  indivduals  was  that 
the  pipeline  should  more  properly  be  built 
across  a  more  northern  route  from  Sault  Ste. 
Marie  to  the  Ghalk  River  area  and  thence 
through  Quebec  to  Montreal. 

Since  the  ultimate  responsibility  for  the 
construction  of  the  line  rests  in  Ottawa,  we 
have  pressed  the  government  of  Ganada,  the 
National  Energy  Board  and  the  Interprovin- 
cial  Pipeline  Co.  for  information  on  these 
two  alternative  routes.  Within  the  last  two 
weeks,  we  have  been  able  to  obtain  more 
complete  information  on  these  possible  routes, 
which  clarifies  why  the  federal  government 
has  decided  on  a  southern  route  from  Sarnia 
to  Montreal. 

Mr.  Gassidy:   This  government  gave  in. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  These  reasons  include 
costs,  potential  reversibility  of  oil  flow,  and 
timing  in  terms  of  the  urgent  need  for  de- 
livery of  oil  to  Montreal  and  eastern  Canada. 

On  the  last  point,  the  most  optimistic 
estimate  of  the  federal  government  indicates 
that  a  northern  route  cannot  be  in  operation 
before  two  years,  and  therefore  no  crude  oil 
could  flow  through  the  line  to  Montreal 
before  the  1976-1977  heating  season.  On  the 
other  hand,  we  have  been  led  to  believe  by 
the  government  of  Canada  that  if  the  south- 
ern route  is  undertaken,  crude  oil  will  be 
flowing  to  the  east  by  the  1975-1976  heating 
season. 


40 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


I  am  tabling  a  fact  sheet  in  connection 
with  this  statement  which  sets  forth  con- 
cisely the  relative  merits  of  both  pipeline 
alignments,  an  analysis  of  which  tends  to 
justify  the  decision  of  the  federal  govern- 
ment. I  might  add  here  that  we  would  sup- 
port the  federal  government  in  its  ultimate 
national  goal  of  an  all-Canadian  pipeline. 

This  does  not  mean,  however,  that  we 
have  abandoned  the  concerns  which 
prompted  us  to  question  the  southern  route 
in  the  first  place. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  And  we'll  table  the  facts. 

Hon.    Mr.    Grossman:    We    are    concerned 
with  environmental  impacts  in  general- 
Mr.  Martel:  Stop  the  flow  of  oil. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  —and  particularly  with 
the  disruption  of  food-prodticing  lands  in 
southern  Ontario. 

Mr.  A.  J.  Roy  (Ottawa  East):  I  guess  the 
Wafilers  are  with  the  government  now. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  We  realize  the 
southern  route  will  cause  much  greater  in- 
convenience and  dislocation  to  citizens  and 
to  personal  property  than  the  northern  route. 
Our  greatest  concern  is  the  potential  losses 
of  agricultural  prodtiotion  along  the  rights  of 
way. 

Mr.  Roy:  How  many  acres? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  We  recognize  that  the 
pipeline  from  Samia  to  Port  Credit,  with  the 
exception  of  some  10  miles,  will  be  built  on 
existing  rights  of  way.  Regardless  of  whether 
we  are  speaking  of  an  existing  pipeline  right 
of  way  or  of  a  right  of  way  to  be  used  in 
eastern  Ontario,  we  do  not  accept  the  proposi- 
tion that  this  can  be  accomplished  without 
disruption  to  adjacent  property. 

The  casual  observer  may  not  be  aware  of 
the  inconvenience  which  such  construction 
brings  to  property  owners  in  terms  of  fence 
removal,  drainage  disruptions,  soil  compaction, 
loss  of  food'  production  during  the  construc- 
tion period,  reduced  production  in  succeeding 
years  and  other  factors.  It  is  true  that  com- 
pensation is  provided,  but  it  is  difiicult  to 
compensate  in  dollars  for  disruptions,  many 
of  which  may  not  become  apparent  for 
months  and  even  years  after  the  actual  con- 
struction period. 

Ontario  farmers  are  concerned  about  this. 
We  have  had  discussions  with  the  Ontario 
Federation  of  Agriculture  relating  to  these 
difficulties  and  I  want  to  make  it  clear  that 
the  Federation  of  Agriculture  is  quite  objec- 


tive about  the  need  for  this  utility.  However, 
they  are  insistent  that  such  matters  as  fair 
compensation,  and  the  protection  of  indi- 
vidual rights  be  assured. 

These  requests  are  valid,  and  we  intend  to 
intervene  at  the  National  Energy  Board  hear- 
ings for  assurance,  among  other  things,  that 
competent  inspectors  be  provided  along  the 
pipeline  route  to  ensure  that  the  concerns  of 
property  owners  are  met. 

We  have  noted  in  recent  decisions  emanat- 
ing from  the  National  Energy  Board  on  pipe- 
line construction  in  western  Canada  that  en- 
vironmental concerns,  including  agriculture, 
are  to  be  given  much  greater  attention  in  the 
future  than  has  been  the  case  in  the  past.  We 
are  encouraged  by  this  new  position  of  the 
National  Energy  Board  and  have  submitted 
to  the  board  for  its  consideration  environ- 
mental guidelines  for  pipeline  construction 
and  maintenance. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  government  had  better 
convince  the  farmers  first  that  the  southern 
route  is  necessary. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  These  guidelines, 
which  I  am  also  tabling  with  this  statement, 
are  those  currently  being  followed  by  the 
Ontario  Energy  Board  for  those  pipelines 
which  are  under  its  jurisdiction. 

Energy  is  a  vital  need  in  these  critical 
times,  second  only  to  our  continuing  depend- 
ence on  food.  Of  all  the  material  things  which 
man  utilizes  these  two  are  by  far  flie  most 
important.  We  want  the  citizens  of  Ontario— 
indeed  of  all  Canada-to  know  that  Ontario's 
priorities  vdll  recognize  these  needs.  We  in- 
tend to  maximize  the  food  production  poten- 
tial in  Ontario  and  we  intend  to  seek  security 
of  energy  supplies  within  a  national  context 
while  paying  due  regard  to  the  environment. 
We  shall  do  everything  in  our  power,  there- 
fore, to  ensure  that  the  construction  of  an 
oil  pipeline  through  southern  Ontario  not 
conflict  with  our  goals. 

Mr.  Roy:  Did  the  minister  prepare  that  or 
was  it  his  predecessor,  the  member  for  Carle- 
ton  East  (Mr.  Lawrence)? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  He  surely  went  to  somebody 
on  that  one. 


ARBITRATION  BOARD 
FOR  CAAT  DISPUTE 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  Mr.  Speaker,  in'  order 
that  members  of  the  House  will  have  a  better 
understanding  of  the  events  which  led  up  to 


MARCH  7,  1974 


41 


the  current  situation,  I  would  like  to  reply  at 
some  length  to  the  question  asked  on  March 
6  by  the  member  for  Nickel  Belt  (Mr. 
Laughren). 

As  the  members  of  the  House  will  recall, 
the  Crown  Employees  Collective  Bargaining 
Act,  the  Act  which  sets  out  the  bargaining 
procedures  for  Crown  employees,  came  into 
force  on  Dec.  29,  1972.  The  Act  provides 
that  where  the  parties  are  unable  to  effect 
an  agreement  the  matters  in  dispute  shall  be 
decided  by  arbitration,  and  also  provides  in 
section  10(1)  that: 

A  person  shall  be  appointed  by  the 
Lieutenant  Governor  in  Council  for  a  re- 
newable term  of  two  years  to  be  the  chair- 
man of  every  board  of  arbitration  estab- 
lished under  this  Act. 

The  members  may  be  interested  in  knowing 
that  under  the  Act  which  governs  federal 
public  servants  the  chairman  of  the  arbitra- 
tion tribunal  is  appointed  by  the  Governor  in 
Council  to  hold  office  during  good  behaviour 
for  such  term,  not  exceeding  seven  years,  as 
may  be  determined  by  the  Governor  in 
Council 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Civil  servants  have  the  right 
to  strike  in  Ottawa  but  they  haven't  got  it 
here. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  His  Honour  Judge  J.  C. 
Anderson  of  Belleville,  Ontario,  whose  expe- 
rience in  labour  relations  arbitration  matters 
in  both  public  and  private  jurisdiction  covers 
a  period  of  more  than  30  years  and  who  is 
generally  regarded  by  unions  and  employers 
alike  as  an  extremely  competent  and  impar- 
tial adjudicator,  was  appointed  as  chairman 
of  the  Public  Service  Arbitration  Board  for 
the  two-year  period  from  Jan.  1,  1973,  to 
Dec.  31,  1974. 

The  members  will  recall  that  Judge  Ander- 
son had  performed  a  similar  service  for  the 
public  service  of  Ontario  since  his  first  ap- 
pointment under  the  Public  Service  Act  as 
early  as  1964.  His  most  recent  appointment 
was  discussed  with  and  was  acceptable  to  the 
bargaining  agents  which  represent  Crown 
employees. 

It  is  acknowledged  there  is  an  honest  dif- 
ference of  opinion  as  to  the  merits  of  ad  hoc 
arbitration  as  opposed  to  the  system  where 
the  chairman  is  appointed  for  a  fixed  term. 
But  it  is  the  very  firm  view  of  this  govern- 
ment, and  obviously  the  view  of  the  federal 
government  as  well,  that  a  chairman  ap- 
pointed for  a  fixed  term  who  has  an  oppor- 
tunity to  become  familiar  with  the  issues 
that  the  parties  bring  before  him  is  able  to 


issue  more  satisfactory  awards  than  a  series 
of  chairmen  who  may  never  be  exposed  to 
the  problems  more  than  once. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  There  is  no  forced  arbitra- 
tion in  Ottawa.  It  is  chosen^ 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Meetings  for  the  pur- 
pose of  renewing  the  agreement  in  effect  for 
the  academic  staff  of  the  colleges  of  applied 
arts  and  technology  began  in  May,  1973. 
The  Civil  Service  Association  of  Ontario  and 
the  faculty  members  of  the  bargaining  team 
for  the  colleges  were  certainly  aware  that  if 
any  impasse  were  reached  the  matters  in 
dispute  would  be  referred  to  arbitration. 
They  also  would  have  known  that  the  chair- 
man of  the  arbitration  board  would  be  Judge 
Anderson. 

The  members  of  the  government  find  it 
extremely  difficult  to  understand  why  a 
small  group  of  faculty  members  waited  until 
this  late  date  to  challenge  the  makeup  of  the 
board- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): They  don't  like  compulsory  arbitration. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  —which,  as  I  said 
earlier,  is  established  by  an  Act  of  this 
parliament. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  They  shouldn't  be  sub- 
jected to  it  either. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  It  is  the  feeling  of  this 
government  that  the  Province  of  Ontario  has 
been  extremely  fortunate  in  acquiring  the 
services  of  a  chairman  with  the  experience 
and  stature  of  Judge  Anderson,  and  it  is  higUy 
regrettable  that  his  capacity  to  act  in  a  com- 
pletely impartial  manner  should  be  ques- 
tioned in  this  way. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  government  is  completely 
satisfied  with  the  manner  in  which  the  Public 
Service  Arbitration  Board  is  constituted. 
There  is  no  doubt  in  the  minds  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  government  that  the  vast  majority 
of  the  members  of  the  academic  staff  of  the 
community  colleges  are  prepared  to  abide  by 
the  laws  of  this  province  and  will  not  con- 
done the  actions  of  those  few  who  are  pre- 
pared to  flaunt  the  law  in  an  attempt  to  force 
the  government  to  give  in  to  their  demands. 

Mr.  F.  Laughren  (Nickel  Belt):  It  is  a  bad 
law. 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West):  Is 
picketing  against  the  law? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  We  trust  that  the  Civil 
Service  Association  of  Ontario,  the  bargaining 


42 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


representative  of  the  employees  involved,  will 
accept  its  responsibilities  to  proceed  with  the 
arbitration  hearings  without  delay. 

Mr.    I.    Deans    (Wentworth):    This    doesn't 
help. 

Mr.     Laughren:     The     minister     has     just 
polarized  it. 

Mr.  Deans:  It's  too  weak. 


ANGLO-CANADIAN  PULP  AND  PAPER 

EXPANSION  IN  NORTHWESTERN 

ONTARIO 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  Mr.  Speaker, 
in  the  Throne  Speech  there  was  some  refer- 
ence to  northern  Ontario  and  I  was  interested 
in  some  of  the  observations  about  certain 
visions.  I  don't  often  comment  on  cartoons 
in  papers  but  there  was  one  in  this  morning's 
Globe  and  Mail,  and  I  hope  there  are  some 
representatives  from  that  paper  here  today. 

Mr.  Lewis:  There  always  are. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  Premier  really  worries 
about  the  Globe,  doesn't  he? 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  rest  of  the  press  can  rest 
their  pens. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Let  the  Premier  tell  us 
about  his  pulp  mill. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  When  they  showed  the 
great  activity  that  one  was  envisaging  for 
the  north,  they  somehow  neglected  that  part 
of  the  Throne  Speech  referring  to  billboards 
or  there  would  have  been  fewer  billboards 
in  the  cartoon  itself. 

I  think  it  is  fair  to  state  that  the  economic 
development  of  the  north  will  not  be  pre- 
dicated on  that  sort  of  thing. 

Mr.  Martel:  Not  on  that  Throne  Speech 
either. 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  It  won't 
be  predicated  on  that  Throne  Speech. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  However,  in  order  to 
give  some  practical  reality  to  what  was  said 
just  two  days  ago,  or  within  48  hours,  I  wish 
to  inform  the  members  that  the  board  of 
directors  of  Anglo-Canadian  Pulp  and  Paper 
Mills  Ltd.  has  given  approval  to  the  first 
phase  of  a  plan  to  create  two  modern  inte- 
grated forest  product  complexes  in  north- 
western Ontario,  and  has  authorized  extensive 
feasibility   studies   for   a   second   phase. 

The  first  phase  will  involve  increasing  the 
company's  sawmilling  capacity  from  34  million 


to  225  million  board  feet  per  annimi  by  con- 
structing sawmills  at  Dryden  and  in  the  Red 
Lake  area.  It  will  involve  the  installation  of 
additional  modfem  effluent  control  systems  at 
the  Dryden  kraft  mill,  and  the  modernization 
and  expansion  of  the  Dryden  kraft  mill  from 
630  to  750  tons  per  day. 

By  late  1975  the  new  sawmilling  capacity 
will  be  phased  in,  as  will  the  installation  of  a 
new  effluent  treatment  system.  The  expansion 
of  the  Dryden  mill  is  schedliled  to  come  on 
stream  in  mid- 1976. 

The  first  phase  of  this  new  programme 
will  involve  the  expenditure  of  about  $63 
million. 

Last  week  the  company  anounced  the  con- 
struction of  a  $2.5  million  chloralkali  plant  at 
Dryden,  using  new  non-mercury  teclmology; 
this  will  meet  the  objectives  of  the  Ministry 
of  the  Environment. 

A  second  phase,  involving  an  investment 
of  $190  milhon,  would  mean  the  construction 
of  a  second  integrated  forest  prodlicts  com- 
plex in  the  Red  Lake  area.  If  the  preliminary 
studies  are  confirmed  it  would  result  in  the 
construction  of  a  900-ton-per-d!ay  kraft  pulp 
mill  operating  exclusively  on  sawdaist,  chips 
and  fines  from  the  company's  sawmills.  In 
addition,  during  this  second  phase,  the  com- 
pany would  expand  its  sawmilUng  operations 
again,  this  time  from  225  million  to  500 
miUion  board  feet  a  year. 

The  company  is  also  studying  the  feasibility 
of  including  a  fibreboard  plant  and  a  speciality 
chemical  plant. 

As  part  of  phase  two,  the  company  has 
pledged  a  $500,000  performance  bond  to  the 
government  of  Ontario  in  connection  with  its 
proposal  to  expand  its  existing  timber  limits 
for  this  phase  with  the  understanding  that 
construction  must  begin  by  December,  1976. 

If  all  projects  prove  feasible  and  are  pro- 
ceeded with  there  would  be  a  total  invest- 
ment of  $253  million  resulting  in  approxi- 
mately 1,800  new  jobs  by  1978  in  the  pulp 
mills,  in  the  sawmills  and  in'  the  woodlands. 
This  would  be  double  the  number  of  people 
the  company  now  employs  in  northwestern 
Ontario. 

The  government  intends  to  ensure  that 
sufiicient  serviced  housing  lots  are  made 
available  in  the  communities  affected. 

iThese  projects  are  consistent  with  the 
growth  objectives  outlined  by  the  govern- 
ment's Design  for  Development,  northwestern 
Ontario  region  report.  As  members  will  recall, 
that  report  called  for  the  creation  of  4,000  to 
5,000  new  jobs  in  the  pulp  and  paper  indus- 
try in  northwestern  Ontario  over  the  next  20 


MARCH  7,  1974 


43 


years.  Today's  announcement,  coupled'  with 
the  announcement  I  made  a  few  months  ago 
with  regard  to  the  Great  Lakes  Paper  Co.'s 
expansion  plans,  puts  the  achievement  of  that 
target  well  within  reach. 

Close  co-operation  between  Anglo-Cana- 
dian and  the  Ontario  government  will  be 
maintained  to  ensure  that  all  necessary  efforts 
are  made  to  protect  the  environment. 

I  am  sure  all  members  of  this  House  join 
me  in  welcoming  this  announcement,  the  re- 
sults of  which  will  bring  a  significant  boost  to 
the  economy  of  the  province,  especially  to 
the  north. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Oral  questions;  the  hon. 
Leader  of  the  Opposition. 


ANGLO-CANADIAN  PULP  AND  PAPER 

EXPANSION  IN  NORTHWESTERN 

ONTARIO 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Further  to  the  Premier's 
statement,  isn't  it  true  that  Anglo-Canadian, 
which  owns  Dryden  Paper,  was  responsible, 
through  pollution,  for  completely  destroying 
the  game  fishing  in  the  Wabigoon  River 
system  and  the  English  River  system  to  such 
an  extent  that  it  can  never  be  restored?  Were 
they  not  under  government  supervision  as  far 
as  environmental  effects  are  concerned  during 
those  days  as  well? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:   Mr.  Speaker,  unlike  the 
member  for  Brant  this  government  lives   in 
the  future,  not  in  the  past.  This  announce- 
ment makes  it  very  clear- 
Interjections  by  hon,  members. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  The 
Premier  has  five  ministers  who  were, 
formerly. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  Premier  has  a  short  memory 
when  it  comes  to  problems. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  This  announcement  makes 
it  very  clear  that  all  future  expansion  plans 
of  Anglo-Canadian  will  meet  the  environ- 
mental requirements  of  this  government. 
While  the  member  for  Brant  may  wish  to 
be  derogatory  about  that  particular  com- 
pany, we  are  very  optimistic- 
Mr.  Breithaupt:  Promise  never  to  do  it 
again. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —as  to  what  it  will  achieve 
for  employment  and  the  general  economic 
development  of  northwestern  Ontario;  and 
we  are  encouraged  by  their  activity. 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  In  con- 
nection with  this  tremendous  investment  of 
dollars  in  this  expansion,  which  is  obviously 
for  the  good  of  the  north,  can  the  Premier 
indicate  to  the  House  what  steps  are  being 
taken  to  clean  up  the  mess  that  was  left  there 
by  the  industry  in  the  past? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  matter 
has  been  debated.  As  I  said  in  this  particular 
statement,  the  company  has  already  an- 
nounced, and  it  is  part  of  their  planned  pro- 
gramme for  Dryden,  that  the  mercury  part 
of  whatever  the  process  was  some  time  ago 
is  to  be  completely  removed.  There  wall  be 
just  no  mercury  pollution  in  their  operation. 

Mr.  Roy:  What  about  the  damage  done  in 
the  past?  Answer  the  question. 

Hon.  G.  A.  Kerr  (Solicitor  General):  Can't 
stand  progress. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  wanted  to  ask  a  supple- 
mentary question.  It  is  Mr.  Jones  who  is 
involved  in  Anglo-Canadian.  As  I  recall  he 
is  one  of  the  chief  executive  ofiicers.  Is  he 
also  a  senior  adviser,  perhaps  chairman  of 
the  advisory  committee  to  the  Minister  of 
Natural  Resources? 

Hon.  L.  Bernier  (Minister  of  Natural  Re- 
sources): No. 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  is  not  an  adviser  to  the 
Minister  of  Natural  Resources? 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainy  River):  He  is  on  the 
committee. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  He  stepped  down  last 
November. 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  stepped  dovm  in  Novem- 
ber? That  answers  my  question. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Okay,  that's  what  I  wanted. 
All  right. 

An  hon.  member:  He  got  what  he  wanted. 

Mr.  Deans:  Just  before  the  arrangement 
was  concluded. 

An  hon.  member:  What  is  the  member's 
point? 

Mr.    Lewis:    I   just   wanted   to   know. 

ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT  OF 
PUBLIC  WORKS 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Provincial   Secretary  for  Resources  Develop- 


44 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


ment.  In  line  with  the  very  proper  concern, 
a  new  concern,  for  the  protection  of  class 
1  and  2  arable  land,  is  he  now  prepared  to 
follow  up  on  what  was  a  partial  commitment 
given  by  the  Premier  yesterday  in  requiring 
that  the  expropriation  hearings  with  regard 
to  the  hydro  lines  in  the  western  part  of 
the  province  be  stood  down,  pending  an 
objective  assessment  as  to  other  locations  for 
the  line  which  would  use  only  half  as  much 
class  1  and  2  land?  Would  the  minister  not 
indicate  as  much  concern  for  projects  under 
provincial  jurisdiction  as  he  very  rightly  shows 
for  projects  in  the  province  under  federal 
jurisdiction? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker, 
quite  properly  I  think  that  question  should 
be  directed  to  the  Minister  of  Energy  (Mr. 
McKeough).  I'm  doing  my  best  to  stay  within 
the  terms  of  reference  of  a  policy  secretary. 
That  is  to  co-ordinate  matters  which  overlap 
various  ministries. 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  Oh,  that  is 
what   the   terms   of   reference   are, 

Mr.  Cassidy:  He  will  meet  the  fate  of 
the  member  for  Carleton  East. 

Hon.   Mr.   Grossman:   This   specific  matter 
is  one  in  which  my  colleague,  the  Minister  of 
Energy,  I'm  sure  would  be  glad- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  He  will  wither  away  before 
our  eyes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Do  the  members  want 
information  or  don't  they?  If  they  want  the 
information,  that's  where  it  belongs. 

Hon.  R.  Welch  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Justice  and  Attorney  General):  Does  the 
member  want  an  answer? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary,  if  I 
may.  The  minister  is  fully  experienced  in 
these  matters,  wouldn't  he  agree  that  the 
statement  he  made  with  remark  to  the  pro- 
tection of  class  1  and  2  land  with  regard 
to  the  pipeline  intrusion  would  in  fact  cover 
the  hydro  line,  the  Arnprior  dam,  the  new 
town  in  Pickering  and  other  provincial  pro- 
grammes which  must  surely  be  covered  by 
the  same  umbrella  of  policy  and  not  subject 
to  the  whim  of  the  Minister  of  Energy? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't 
know  why  the  hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
makes  such  an  issue  of  it. 

Mr.  Roy:  It  is  important. 


Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  If  the  hon.  member 
wants  the  information,  and  I'm  directing  him 
to  the  minister  who  would  have,  in  my  view 
and  the  government's  view,  that  specific 
information- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Is  the  provincial  secretary 
going  to  be  just  like  Allan  Lawrence  and 
have  nothing  to  say  about  policy? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  —why  not  get  to  the 
point  as  quickly  as  possible?  I  tell  the  mem- 
ber that  that  is  the  responsibility  of  the  Min- 
ister of  Energy,  because  the  member  has  ask- 
ed a  specific  question- 
Mr.  Roy:  If  he  keeps  it  up  he  will  be  fired. 
He  will  be  fired  just  like  the  member  for 
Carleton  East. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Just  a  signpost. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  —which  relates  to  his 
ministry. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I'd  like  to  redirect  a  ques- 
tion to  the  Minister  of  Energy,  with  your 
permission,  sir. 

Mr.  Lewis:  About  time. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Could  have  saved  three 
minutes  because  he  has  been  ready. 

Mr.  Roy:  They  will  make  a  seat  for  the 
member  for  St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick  next  to  the 
member  for  Carleton  East. 

Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of  En- 
ergy): Mr.  Speaker,  it  seems  to  me  that  yes- 
terday we  were  dealing  with  three  different 
hydro  lines.  Perhaps  to  put  them  in  context 
we've  talked  about  the  Pickering  to  Nanticoke 
line,  which  I  think— 

An  hon.  member:  At  length. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  —as  the  Premier  said 

yesterday- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That's  the  one  that  goes 

through  Peel. 

Mr.  Singer:  It  just  happens  to  be  the  rid- 
ing he  represents. 


An  hon.  member:  And  Halton,  and  Bramp- 


ton. 


Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  —could  be  considered 
to  be  under  some  sort  of  an  environmental  im- 
pact review  process  at  the  present  moment 
with  Dr.  Solandt,  and  we  await  that  report. 


MARCH  7,  1974 


45 


The  second  series  of  lines  which  was  talk- 
ed about  yesterday  was  from  the  Bradley 
junction,  which  is  near  Bruce,  to  George- 
town. In  that  particular  instance,  selection  of 
the  correct  route— or  the  Tightest  route,  or  the 
least  damaging  route,  depending  upon  your 
point  of  view  I  suppose— is  going  through  the 
process.  Hydro  have  undertaken  a  large- 
scale  programme,  which  I  may  say  is  un- 
precedented in  North  America  in  terms  of 
trying  to  involve  the  public- 
Mr.  Singer:  Naturally. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  —in  that  kind  of  de- 
cision-making process. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Another  one  of  those. 

Mr.  Singer:  Or  in  the  world— the  western 
world. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  It  will  be,  I  think, 
some  months  before  Hydro,  through  that  pro- 
cess, comes  to  some  conclusions.  After  that 
it  will  report  its  conclusions  to  the  govern- 
ment and  the  government  at  that  point  will 
decide  whether  it  is  necessary  to  have  some 
further  environmental  hearing  a  la  Dr. 
Solandt  or  not.  If  there  is  obviously  an  en- 
vironmental hearing  board  fully  empowered 
at  that  point,  then  that  would  presumably 
be  the  route  we  would  go  rather  than  a 
royal  commission  under  Dr.  Solandt. 

What  the  member  was  talking  about  yes- 
terday, and  what  I  assume  he  is  referring 
to  today,  is  a  50-mile  stretch  of  line  from 
the  Bradley  junction  to  Seaforth,  which  line 
was  selected  as  early  as  1969  and  which  it 
is  crucial  to  have  in  place,  as  I  understand 
it,  for  the  opening  of  the  first  unit  at  Bruce, 
which  should  take  place— if  it  is  on  schedule, 
and  we  have  no  reason  to  think  that  it  won't 
be-in  July  of  1975,  barely  14  months  from 
now. 

Hydro  went  through  what  they  then 
thought  was  a  form  of  public  participation 
and  which  for  many,  many  years  was  thought 
to  have  been  adequate— although  I  think 
events  have  proven  otherwise.  This  has  been 
the  route  up  to  this  point  and  they  are  now 
down  to  the  point  where  it  is  necessary  to 
expropriate  some  remaining  properties. 

There  are  three  different  routes  that  we 
are  talking  about  and  there  are  others  in 
the  province  which  are  in  various  stages. 
Obviously,  the  announcement  in  the  Speech 
from  the  Throne  concerning  environmental 
impact  and  giving  that  authority  to  someone, 
depending  on  the  disposition  of  the  green 
paper,  cannot  be  retroactive.  The  world  can't 


stop  and  turn  the  clock  back,  three  and  four 
and  five  years  in  some  instances. 

Nevertheless,  having  said  that,  the  good 
farmers  of  that  particular  area  in  Bruce  were 
in  to  see  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and 
Food  (Mr.  Stewart)  and  his  ofiBcials— brought 
in,  I  think,  in  part  by  the  member  for  Huron- 
Bruce  (Mr.  Gaunt)— and  they  met  with  them. 
The  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  arrang- 
ed for  those  farmers  to  meet  with  the  re- 
sources policy  field  and  they  did,  I  think 
three  weeks  ago  today.  Subsequently,  a  meet- 
ing has  been  held  by  the  resources  policy 
field  with  Ontario  Hydro,  with  other  gov- 
ernment ministries  and  with  concerned  agen- 
cies of  the  government. 

The  matter  is  under  review,  and  hopefully 
within  the  next  two  or  three  weeks  some 
definite  position  can  be  attained  with  regard 
to  the  position  of  the  farmers  and  the  route 
of  that  Hydro  line.  But  we  are  not  in  a  posi- 
tion to  say  what  the  ultimate  disposition  of 
the  review  will  be  at  this  moment. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Supplementary? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Since  the  other  question  re- 
lated also  to  the  Amprior  project,  which  is 
also  affecting  farm  land  and  farmers,  does  the 
minister  consider  that  there  was  an  ade- 
quate environmental  study  and  there  was  ade- 
quate information  provided  to  local  residents; 
or  whether  there  was  adequate  public  par- 
ticipation in  the  choice  of  that  particular  pro- 
ject and  the  way  it  was  to  be  built?  And  if 
not,  what  will  he  do  about  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  it 
was  the  subject  of  an  exhaustive  review.  Ob- 
viously the  member  from  Ottawa  doesn't  think 
so  and  we  might  debate  that  at  some  other 
time. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Huron- 
Bruce? 

Mr.  M.  Gaunt  (Huron-Bruce):  Mr.  Speak- 
er, I  have  a  supplementary  to  the  minister. 
In  relation  to  the  Huron-Bruce  power  Hne, 
since  this  matter  is  now  under  review,  would 
the  minister  undertake  to  talk  to  Ontario 
Hydro  with  respect  to  the  rate  of  compen- 
sation for  the  farmers  in  that  hydro  line 
corridor,  particularly  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
Ontario  Hydro  has  been  offering  rates  which 
are  50  to  75  per  cent  of  current  market  value, 
as  opposed  to  the  rates  being  offered  for  the 
pipeline,  which  I  understand  are  about  150 
per  cent  of  current  market  value? 


46 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Roy:  A  difference  in  government,  I 
guess. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Well  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
don't  know  that  it  would  be  proper  for  me 
to  talk  to  Hydro  about  individual  properties. 
I  think  the  member  might  well  wish  to  speak 
about  specifics  to  the  member  for  Simcoe 
Centre  (Mr.  Evans),  who  is  a  member  of  the 
Hydro  board  of  directors.  I  can  only  say 
this:  In  various  situations  which  I  have  look- 
ed at  from  time  to  time,  Hydro  have  had  the 
benefit  of  outside  appraisals.  They  have  had 
the  benefit  of  outside  appraisals,  for  example, 
at  Amprior,  and  in  that  instance,  I  think,  in 
one  out  of  something  like  12  properties  the 
outside  appraisal  was  higher  than  the  oflFer 
which  Hydro  had  made.  I  think  in  11  cases 
the  Hydro  off^er  was  higher  than  the  outside 
appraisal,  in  some  cases  substantially  higher. 

I  recognize  that  if  my  property  were  being 
taken,  or  if  I  were  going  to  sell  a  piece  of 
property,  I  would  have  a  very  high  view  or  a 
very  inflated  view— inflated  might  be  better 
than  high,  I  think— that  view  might  be  some- 
thing higher  than  Hydro  are  prepared  to 
ofi^er. 

Hydro  are  in  the  position,  of  course,  of 
attempting  to  provide  power  at  cost  to  the 
people  of  Ontario.  To  do  that,  they  have 
to  not  only  provide  fair  prices  but  prices 
which  are  commensurate  with  market  value. 
And  if  farmers  or  land  owners  anywhere  in 
the  province  feel  aggrieved  and  that  they  are 
not  receiving  a  sufiBcient  price,  then  we  have 
in  this  province,  thanks  to  the  foresight  of 
this  government,  one  of  the  finest  pieces  of  ex- 
propriation legislation  that  will  be  found 
anywhere, 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Certainly  in  the  eastern 
hemisphere! 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  We  have  a  Land 
Compensation  Board  which  will  deal  ade- 
quately and  fairly  with  those  being  expropri- 
ated, and  in  the  public  interest  as  well;  and 
I  put  my  faith  there. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supplementary: 
In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  farmers  and 
others  who  have  looked  into  the  Arnprior 
project  are  not  satisfied  about  the  exhaustive 
review  referred  to  by  the  minister,  will  the 
minister  undertake  to  table  soon  in  the  House 
all  of  the  relevant  documents  that  under- 
pinned the  government's  review,  including  the 
engineering  feasibility  study  prepared  for  the 
dam,  which  is  now  being  denied  to  people 
who  request  it. 


Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  I  think  the  hon.  mem- 
ber could  make  some  of  the  copies  which  he 
has  received  from  Hydro  available  to  his 
friends. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supplementary: 
If  I  could  have  a  direct  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion, will  the  minister  undertake  to  table  in 
this  House  documents  referring  to  the  Arn- 
prior dam,  which  are  now  being  denied  to 
those  who  requested  them  directly  from 
Hydro? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  num- 
ber of  documents  have  been  tabled  in  the 
House  and  certain  documents  have  been  given 
to  people  who  want  them,  and  they  are  avail- 
able for  inspection.  As  far  as  I  am  concerned, 
the  hon.  member  has  got  all  he  is  going  to  get. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  He's  over 
on  the  island! 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  On  a  point  of  privilege,  Mr. 
Speaker- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Is  the  hon.  member  attempt- 
ing to  get  more  information? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  seek- 
ing to  raise  a  point  of  privilege,  which  I  think 
is  quite  important,  particularly  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  Ontario  Hydro  has  this  week 
become  a  Crown  corporation  that  is  directly 
accountable,  one  assumes,  to  this  House. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That's  right.  It  is  running 
roughshod  around  Ontario. 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park):  The  minister 
has  no  right  to  refuse  that  information. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  question  of  accountabil- 
ity is  at  stake,  it  seems  to  me,  when  basic 
information- 
Mr.  Speaker:  What  is  the  point  of  privilege? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  privileges  of  this  House, 
Mr.  Speaker,  are  affected  when  members  of 
this  Legislature  are  denied  information  by  the 
ministry  and  by  a  Crown  corporation  respon- 
sible to  the  House,  which  directly  reports  to- 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  There  is  no  privilege 
that  has  been  abused  by  the  minister;  no 
privilege  whatsoever.  The  hon,  member  will 
be  seated.  There  is  no  point  of  privilege. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point 
of  order,  I  submit  to  you,  sir,  that  there  is  a 
point    of    privilege    or    order    for    your    con- 


MARCH  7,  1974 


47 


sideration.  Can  a  minister,  just  oflF  the  top  of 
his  head,  d^eny  any  further  information  to  a 
member  of  this  House,  particularly  when  it 
pertains  to  a  pubhc  project? 

Mr.  Shulman:  Only  if  it  is  the  Minister  of 
Energy.  There  is  another  embarrassment. 
They  always  do  it, 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Surely,  Mr.  Speaker,  this 
is  a  matter  that  Should  give  you  some 
personal  concern, 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  am  sure  the  hon.  Leader  of 
the  Opposition  is  familiar  with  the  provisions 
pertaining  to  the  question  period  in  which 
the  minister  may  or  may  not  answer.  He  need 
not  answer  a  question. 

Mr.  Lewis:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  member  for  Ottawa  Centre  was 
seeking  information  from  Ontario  Hydro, 
which  is  now  a  Crown  corporation  respon- 
sible to  the  House- 
Mr.  Ruston:  The  member  voted  for  it, 

Mr.  Lewis:  That's  right!  And  in  a  vindic- 
tive, splenetic  outburst,  typical  of  the  minis- 
ter, he  personally  denies  access.  Well,  that 
destroys  Hydro's  accountability,  and  that  is  a 
point  of  privilege  in  the  House,  Mr,  Speaker. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  It  comes  from  out  of  his 
hip  pocket, 

Mr.  Shulman:  Mr,  Speaker,  surely  it  is  not 

the  right  of  a  minister- 
Mr.  Ruston:  Listen  to  who  is  talking!  The 

speculator. 

Hon.  Mr.  Kerr:  The  number  one  capitalist 
over  there, 

Mr.  Shulman:  —of  an  arrogant  minister,  to 
come  in  here  and  tell  the  members  of  this 
House  they  cannot  get  information  on  matters 
which  are  directly  our  responsibihty. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  '  ' 

Mr.  Lewis:  When  we  take  power  well 
nationalize  Hydro. 

Mr.  Roy:  Don't  hold  your  breath! 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please,  I'm  not  at  all 
certain  of  the  precise  words  used  by  the  hon, 
minister. 

Mr.  Martel:  Oh,  come  on!  You  heard  what 
he  said. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I'm  not  at  all  certain  of  the 
precise  words  used  by  the  hon,  minister.  I'll 
undertake  to  review  Hansard,  and  if,  in  fact. 


there  is  any  way  in  which  I  can  see  that  the 
question  period  has  been  abused  I  will  cer- 
tainly take  further  action.  But  as  far  as  I  am 
concerned  there  has  been  no  misuse  of  the 
question  period  on  the  part  of  the  minister. 
He  need  not  reply  to  any  question  and  he 
may  reply  in  any  manner  ne  sees  fit. 

The  hon.  Leadfer  of  the  Opposition. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Throw  him  in  the  tower. 

Mr.  P.  J.  Yakabuski  (Renfrew  South): 
Which  one? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  point  of  privilege,  Mr. 
Speaker,  is  not  the  question  about  the  use  or 
misuse  of  the  question  period.  It  is  the  ques- 
tion of  the  privileges  of  members  of  this 
House- 
Mr.  Shulman:  Right! 

Mr.  Cassidy:  —in  receiving  information 
from  ministers. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please,  I've  ruled  on 
that.  My  ruling  is  not  debatable.  The  hon, 
member  for  Brant, 


PROSECUTION  OF  DENTURISTS 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
Attorney  General  how  he  dbcides  which 
denturists  are  going  to  be  raided  and  then 
charged  and  brought  before  the  courts;  be- 
cause presumably  all  of  the  practising  den- 
turists are  breaking  the  ridiculous  law  that 
was  put  through  the  Legislature  just  a  few 
months  ago— 

Mr.  Shulman:  It  is  done  by  lot, 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  —even  though  the  law 
did  not  conform  to  the  Attorney  General's 
stated  principle. 

An  hon.  member:  Depending  on  the  quahty 
of  their  character. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr,  Speaker,  knowing 
how  anxious  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  is 
to  have  this  particular  matter  answered^ 

Mr.  Shulman:  We  can't  hear. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  —I  would  indicate  at  this 
time  that  he  will  recall  that  my  predecessor 
made  the  position  quite  clear,  that  if  anyone 
knew  of  anyone  who  was  breaking  the  law 
with  respect  to  that  statute,  that  if  we  had 
that  information  we  would  give  it  to  the 
Crown   Attorney   having  jurisdiction   in   that 


48 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Breithaupt:  But  which  ones  does  the 
government  put  the  bite  on? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Does  the 
Attorney  General,  therefore,  charge  only  the 
ones  that  the  Minister  of  Health  (Mr.  Miller), 
or  his  predecessor,  have  brought  to  his  atten- 
tion; or  were  there  complaints  from  the 
community;  or,  in  fact,  does  the  minister 
know  of  some  denturists  practising  as  den- 
turists  who  are  not  breaking  the  law? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  may 
repeat,  as  far  as  I  know  now— but  I  will  be 
glad  to  get  up-to-date  information— I  know  of 
no  complaints  that  have  been  brought  to  us, 
that  is  to  the  Attorney  General  or  to  the 
agent  of  the  Attorney  General,  the  Crown 
attorney  in  any  of  the  jurisdictions  in  Ontario. 
If  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  has  some  in- 
formation which  he  feels  I  should  have  in 
this  regard,  I  will  gladly  put  it  in  the  hands 
of  the  proper  court  ofiRcials. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Since  he  has  asked  for 
the  information,  I  would  suggest  that  the 
information  that  he  seeks  lies  in  the  mind  of 
the  Minister  of  Health.  The  Attorney  General 
should  surely  advise  the  Minister  of  Health 
that  that  law  must  be  amended  and  put  back 
the  way  the  Attorney  General  had  it  origi- 
nally, and  then  there  ^^'^ould  be  no  more  prob- 
lem and  the  denturists  would  be  able  to 
practise  legally.  Is  that  the  information  the 
minister  was  asking  for? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Can  the  minister  explain 
why  the  leaders  of  the  denturists  have  not 
been  raided?  In  fact,  people  like  Mr.  Sweet 
have  publicly  got  up  and  said  they're  prac- 
tising. He's  continuing  to  practise,  and  yet 
he  isn't  touched.  But  the  government  touches 
these  little  people  around  the  province.  Is 
it  being  done  by  lot? 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Perhaps  we'll  get  him  to 
streak  across  the  chamber. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Who? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Does  the  member  mean 
the  hon.  member  for  High  Park? 

Mr.  Shulman:  No,  the  Attorney  General. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  That  would  be  a  real 
treat  if  I  did. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  will  be  an  apparition,  I  will 
tell  the  Attorney  General. 


Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Yes,  quite.  That  would 
be  the  reforming  AG. 

Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  could  reply  to  the  hon. 
member  for  High  Park;  I  really  can't  add 
anything  further  to  the  answer  I've  already 
provided  to  the  hon.  Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion other  than  to  restate  the  position  which 
my  predecessor  made  quite  clear  in  this 
House,  that  if  anyone  has  any  information 
with  respect  to  a  violation  of  that  particular 
statute,  he  should  provide  it  to  us. 

Mr.  Roy:  They  have  a  full  page  ad. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Look  in  the  yellow  pages. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Etobi- 
coke. 

Mr.  L.  A.  Braithwaite  (Etobicoke):  As  a 
supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker,  perhaps  the 
Attorney  General  could  tell  us  what  steps 
he  is  taking  to  protect  the  rights  of  innocent 
people  who  happen  to  be  visiting  denturists 
when  the  high-jackbooted  police  come  in? 
The  rights  of  these  people  are  being 
severely— 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Braithwaite:  Shut  up!  I'm  asking  a 
question. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.   Lewis:   It  is  a  novelty  all  right. 

Mr.  Braithwaite:  That's  nice.  The  rights  of 
these  people  are  being  severely  restricted 
when  the  police  come  in. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Question. 

Mr.  Braithwaite:  Could  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral state  what  he's  doing  to  protect  these 
people? 

An  hon.  member:  Are  they  found-ins? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the  hon. 
member  has  any  specific  information  in  this 
regard,  the  Attorney  General  would  like  to 
have  it. 

Interjections  by  hon.   members. 

Mr.  Braithwaite:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  a  supple- 
mentary, a  specific  case  in  my  particular 
riding  has  been  brought  to  the  attention  of 
the  Minister  of  Health  in  the  past,  and  there 
has  been  more  than  one  case  of  this.  The 
Attorney  General  must  know  of  these  cases. 
I  don't  have  to  give  him  further  information. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Read  the  papers. 


MARCH  7.  1974 


49 


Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  may  I  ask  a  sup- 
plementary pursuant  to  this  question? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Yes,  you  may. 

Mr.  Roy:  Could  the  Attorney  General  tell 
us  about  the  legality  of  the  full  page  ad  on 
the  government's  dental  plan?  In  light  of  the 
fact  that  the  denturists  themselves  as  a  pro- 
fession or  as  individuals  cannot  advertise 
legally,  does  the  Attorney  General  not  feel 
that  he  is  breaching  their  ethics  by  using 
public  funds  to  advertise  for  them?  Could  he 
tell  us  about  the  legality  of  these  acts,  which 
is  propaganda  for  the  dentists  at  public 
expense? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Well  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I 
understand  the  question  correctly,  reference 
is  being  made  to  an  advertisement  inserted 
by  the  Ministry  of  Health.  I  would  suggest 
that  the  Ministry  of  Health  is  in  itself  not 
violating  any  particular  law  in  advertising 
that  particular  programme. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Yes;  it  is  inappropriate,  but  it 
is  probably  not  illegal. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Leader  of  the 
Opposition. 

The  hon.  member  for  Scarborough  West. 


ROUTE  OF  PETROLEUM  PIPELINE 

Mr.  Lewis:  Could  I  ask  the  Minister  of 
Energy  a  question,  Mr.  Speaker?  Last  Satur- 
day he  indicated:  "From  a  cold,  calculated, 
hard-nosed  point  of  view,  the  pipeline  should 
not  be  built  until  at  least  1990";  and  on 
Thursday  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Re- 
sources Development  made  the  announce- 
ment. Can  he  explain  his  view? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  was  not  cold- 
blooded. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  so 
often  happens,  one  is  sometimes  misquoted— 

Some  hon.  members:  Oh,  oh. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  -or  one  is  sometimes 
not  quoted  in  full.  I  think  the  words  that  I 
used  were  quoted  correctly,  but  I  also  said 
some  other  things.  I  said  nothing  about  1990. 
What  I  said  was  that  from  a  cold,  calculat- 
injf,  completely  business-like  point  of  view- 
Mr.  Roy:  Hard-nosed, 
Mr.  M.  C.  Germa  (Sudbury):  Hard-headed. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Hard-nosed.  Did  I 
say  that? 


I  said  it  might  make  sense  to  defer  the 
decision  until  such  time  as  it  was  clear  how 
much  oil  was  going  to  be  available  from 
conventional  sources  in  western  Canada  and 
how  much  oil  might  be  available  from  the 
east  coast,  and  then  decide  whether  the  line 
would  be  built  as  a  reversible  line. 

Having  said  that,  I  also  said,  and  have  said 
on  a  number  of  occasions,  that  from  the  point 
of  view  of  security  of  supply  of  the  Man- 
times,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  security 
of  supply  of  the  Province  of  Quebec,  and  from 
the  point  of  view  of  the  security  of  supply 
of  about  800,000  people  in  Ontario  who  live 
east  of  the  border  line,  it  is  imperative  that 
we  get  on  with  that  pipeline  and  get  it  built 
as  quickly  as  possible. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supplementary 
question:  In  the  light  of  the  minister's  refer- 
ence about  800,000  people  living  on  the  other 
side  of  this  line,  what  pressure  has  the  min- 
ister brought  on  the  oil  companies  that  are 
presently  supplying  oil  to  the  Ottawa  area 
from  the  west  through  this  Kingston  pipeline 
and,  because  of  the  cheaper  price  from  the 
west,  stand  to  make  profits  of  something  like 
$1  million? 

What  pressure  has  he  brought  on  these 
companies  so  that  they  will  give  us  the  oil 
in  Ottawa  at  the  same  price  as  people  get 
it  here  in  Toronto,  phis  the  cost  of  trans- 
portation? Has  he  brought  any  pressure  on 
the  companies  to  give  the  benefit  of  this 
cheap  oil  from  the  west  to  the  consumers  and 
not  to  the  companies? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  we 
have  not,  because  since  last  fall  both  gasoline 
and  heating  oil  sold  east  of  the  Ottawa  Val- 
ley line  has  been,  in  effect,  under  a  price 
freeze  imposed  by  the  government  of  Can- 
ada and  administered  by  the  Minister  of 
Energy,  Mines  and  Resources.  And  if  any  oil 
company  is  making  an  exorbitant  profit  on 
sales  east  of  the  line,  then  I  would  suggest 
that  the  hon.  member  should  talk  to  his 
federal  friends  and  point  that  out,  because  in 
effect  the  federal  minister  is  controlling  the 
price. 

Mr.  Roy:  I  have. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  And  if  he's  allow- 
ing them  exorbitant  profits,  then  the  hon. 
member  should  hang  his  head  in  shame. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  light  of  the 
fact  that  this  problem  has  been  brought  to  the 
minister's    attention,    will    he    undertake    to 


50 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


bring  it  to  the  federal  minister's  attention? 
Will  he  put  pressure  on  him?  This  minister  is 
a  pretty  hard-nosed  guy.  Go  after  him. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.   Lewis:   Mr.   Speaker,  I  know  nothing 
of  federal  politics— 

An  hon.  member:  It  runs  in  the  family. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


MAPLE  MOUNTAIN  DEVELOPMENT 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  would  like  to  ask  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism. 

When  is  the  minister  releasing  all  of  the 
feasibility  studies  and  documents  related  to 
the  proposed  Maple  Mountain  project  in 
northeastern  Ontario? 

Mr.  Laughren:  Good  question. 

Mr.  Foulds:  And  why? 

Hon.  C.  Bennett  (Minister  of  Industry  and 
Tourism):  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  my  intention  to 
release  those  reports  as  soon  as  I  have  re- 
ported to  cabinet  on  the  full  facts  and  the 
meanings  of  the  report.  We  have  had  input 
from  some  of  the  people  in  the  various  minis- 
tries whom  we  have  asked  to  comment  on 
them.  That  should  be,  likely,  within  the  next 
10  days. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Within  the  next  10  days? 

A  further  question:  When  the  minister  sub- 
mits those  reports  can  he  indicate  to  the 
House  the  effect  of  the  title  claims  which  have 
been  registered  by  the  Indian  band  against 
all  of  the  property  within  which  Maple  Moun- 
tain fall's  and  the  possible  legal  implications 
of  that  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  gov- 
ernment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
sure  that  can  be  included  in  the  reports  at 
the  time  we  bring  them  to  the  House  for  the 
simple  reason  it  will  take  some  period  of 
time  to  look  at  the  validity  of  the  claims 
placed  before  the  government.  I  have  asked 
the  Attorney  General  and  the  Minister  of 
Natural  Resources  to  review  the  situation  and 
to  report  back  to  me  and,  in  turn,  to  cabinet. 
If  it  is  possible  we  will  include  it;  if  not  it 
will  be  brought  into  the  House  at  a  later  date. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Right;  thank  you. 


HALL  LAMP  CO. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  question,  Mr.  Speaker,  of  the 
Minister  of  Labour.  Now  that  we  are  into  the 
new  year  can  he  tell  the  House  what  finally 
happened  to  the  600  employees  of  the  Hall 
Lamp  Co.? 

Hon.  F.  Guindon  (Minister  of  Labour):  Mr. 
Speaker,  in  reply  to  the  hon.  member,  I  am 
sure  he  is  aware  by  now  that  we  did  every- 
thing within  our  power  to  collect  from  the 
Hall  Lamp  Co.  every  dollar  in  salaries  or 
wages  owed  to  the  employees.  We  have  done 
this;  also  any  amount  owing  to  them  with 
reference  to  vacation  pay.  Unfortunately  as 
far  as  termination  pay  is  concerned  we  could 
not  get  anything  from  the  company. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Not  a  penny? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  No. 

Mr.  Lewis:  By  way  of  supplementary,  does 
the  minister  understand  that  he  was  used 
and  manipulated  by  a  private  company,  a 
private  subsidiary  in  Ontario,  to  give  voice 
in  this  Legislature  about  a  temporary  shut- 
down which  was,  in  fact,  permanent  from  the 
day  it  occurred?  Therefore,  he  participated 
with  that  company  in  the  denial  to  600  people 
of  the  rights  which  he  has  guaranteed  them 
under  legislation  and,  in  the  last  several 
weeks,  has  taken  away  from  them?  Can  he 
find  some  way  of  avoiding  that  ever  happen- 
ing again  to  a  large  number  of  people  in  the 
Province  of  Ontario? 

Mr.  Deans:  He  was  had. 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  was  had  by  a  company. 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Speaker,  of  course, 
hindsight  is  much  easier  than  foresight.  None- 
theless, we  are  looking  at  our  legislation  to 
see  what  we  can  do  in  the  case  of  bank- 
ruptcy. This  is  a  case  of  bankruptcy;  as  mem- 
bers know  it  is. 

Mr.  Deans:  But  the  minister  was  told. 
Right  from  day  one. 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  We  were  told.  We  have 
no  control  over  the  Bankruptcy  Act. 

Mr.  Lewis:  They  didn't  declare  bankruptcy 
for  weeks. 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  This  comes  under 
federal  legislation,  as  members  know. 


HALL  LAMP  CO. 

Mr.  Lewis:  For  weeks  they  didn't  declare 
bankruptcy. 


MARCH  7,  1974 


51 


1  have  a  questicai  on  that  subject  of  the 
Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism.  I  take  it 
that,  in  fact,  no  loan  was  granted  or  is  to  be 
granted  through  the  Ontario  Development 
Corp.  to  reopen  the  Hall  Lamp  Co.  for  other 
purposes? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  indi- 
cated to  the  House  some  weeks  ago,  in  the 
last  sitting,  there  were  several  firms  interested 
in  trying  to  pick  up  the  pieces  of  Hall  Lamp. 
Our  ministry,  through  Ontario  Development 
Corp.— I  should  say  both  the  ministry  and 
the  Ontario  Development  Corp.  met  with 
several  firms  to  discuss  the  possibility  of  put- 
ting the  operation  back  together.  None  of 
them  could  put  up  the  capital  funds  required. 

I  might  admit  that  there  were  two  or 
three  companies  which  went  in  and  finished 
off  some  of  the  products  for  which  they  were 
waiting  for  delivery  to  their  plants  and  they 
did  use  part  of  the  labour  force  for  a  period 
of  time.  But  no  one  at  this  point  has  picked 
up  the  pieces,  because  the  capital  investment 
is  too  great  and  the  firms  we  were  talking 
with  did  not  have  the  resources  to  put  them- 
selves in  that  position. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Fair  enough.  So  it  was  an 
entire  disaster  from  day  one. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
sure  it  was  an  entire  disaster.  We  have  bank- 
ruptcies in  this  province  and  on  many  occa- 
sions this  government  has  tried  through  the 
Ontario  Development  Corp.— 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  wasn't  a  bankruptcy. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  —to  stabilize  the  firm  to 
retain  and  maintain  the  employment  in  that 
particular  operation  or  operations. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  government  sure  didn't  do 
it  this  time. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  We  tried  in  every  area 
to  secure  the  position  of  the  firni  but  it  was 
an  impossibility,  and  it  would  not  have  been 
money  well  invested  by  the  government  of 
Ontario. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Huron 
with  a  supplementary. 

Mr.  J.  Riddell  (Huron):  A  supplementary 
of  the  minister:  Is  he  aware  that  a  Canadian 
firm,  along  with  the  former  managerial  staff 
of  Hall  Lamp,  submitted  a  bid  which  was  a 
very  reasonable  bid  to  the  receiver,  and  that 
the  receiver  has  failed  to  act  on  this  bid— and 
is  there  anything  that  the  minister  can  do  to 
speed  up  the  process  so  that  the  plant  can  be 
reactivated  and  put  back  into  operation? 


Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  indi- 
cated earlier,  there  were  several  firms  that 
were  interested'  in  trying  to  pick  up  the  pieces 
of  Hall  Lamp.  The  one  the  member  speaks  of 
did  put  in  a  proposal.  It  was  my  understand- 
ing, in  information  given  to  us  by  the  re- 
ceiver, that  the  sums  of  money  put  forward 
by  the  organization  were  not  sufficient  to 
carry  the  position. 

Now,  I  can  review  it  again  with  the  re- 
ceiver and  the  people  in  Ontario  Develop- 
ment Corp.;  but  that  was  the  last  word  that 
I  had  had  on  the  Hall  Lamp  and  those  that 
were  interested  in  trying  to  re-establish  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough West. 


ACQUISITION  OF  LAKE  ONTARIO 
CEMENT  PROPERTY 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Natural  Resources:  Can  he  now  tell  the  House 
what  he  has  offered  for  the  acquisition  of  the 
Lake  Ontario  Cement  property  after  the  ex- 
propriation is  completed? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  in- 
formed the  House  at  the  last  sitting  this 
matter  was  being  handled  by  the  Land  Com- 
pensation Board.  It  comes  under  the  Attorney 
General's  department.  I  am  informed  that 
an  independent  appraiser  was  engaged  and 
on  his  report  the  company  was  offered 
$150,000  on  Jan.  22.  The  company  rejected 
the  offer,  but  the  cheque  was  delivered  to 
the  firm  on  Feb.  15  and  has  not  been 
returned. 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough West  has  further  questions? 


FEMALE  APPOINTMENTS  TO  WCB 

Mr.  Lewis:  One  very  quick  question  of  the 
Premier,  Mr.  Speaker.  The  Premier  just  made 
a  series  of  appointments  and  reappointments 
amounting  to  five  in  number  to  the  Work- 
men's Compensation  Board— to  the  highest 
portion  of  that  board  dealing  with  adminis- 
tration and  appeals— not  a  single  one  of 
which  appointments  was  a  woman.  Does  that 
reflect  the  new  tenure  of  the  Throne  Speech? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I— 

An  hon.  member:  Tenure? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Tenor,  I  am  sorry. 


52 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  going 
to  ask  about  tenure.  We  on  this  side  of  the 
House  will  make  sure  the  tenure  is  continued 
as  far  as  the  affairs  of  this  government  are 
concerned. 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South): 
Answer  the  question. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  As  far  as  the  tenor  of 
the  Throne  Speech  is  concerned,  I  think 
what  was  stated  there  is  not  only  an  obvious 
fact,  but  many  of  the  appointments  that  have 
been  made  in  recent  months  would  sub- 
stantiate it. 

With  respect  to  the  appointments  to  the 
Workmen's  Compensation  Board,  there  is  not 
a  woman  in  that  particular  group.  But  I  can 
assure  the  hon.  member— because  I  know  he 
is  interested  in  women  being  appointed— that 
there  are  two  or  three  other  appointees  to  be 
made  to  the  Workmen's  Compensation  Board, 
and  it  is  our  hope  to  have  a  woman  as  one 
of  those. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Downs- 
view. 


NO-FAULT  AUTOMOBILE  INSURANCE 

Mr.  Singer:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Premier.  In  view  of  the  Premier's  statement 
not  too  long  ago  that  we  could  expect  new 
no-fault  automobile  insurance  laws  in  On- 
tario, and  in  view  of  the  recent  publicity 
given  to  a  proposal  along  these  lines  by  the 
insurance  industry,  is  that  the  kind  of  new 
law  that  the  Premier  had  in  mind?  Or  in  view 
of  the  reaction  that  that  proposal  has  re- 
ceived from  portions  of  the  insurance  in- 
dustry—and certainly  from  the  legal  profes- 
sion and  from  many  members  of  the  public- 
would  the  Premier  be  prepared  to  set  up  a 
select  committee  to  inquire  into  this  whole 
problem— including  rates,  no-fault  principles, 
the  extensions  of  our  law— so  that  Ontario 
might  perhaps  have  a  better  law  than  it 
now  has? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Please  say  no. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't 
intend  to  establish  a  select  committee  on  that 
subject,  certainly  at  this  moment.  I  don't 
really  recall  saying  that  we  are  going  to  have 
a  new  no-fault  insurance  programme.  I  do 
recall  speaking  to  a  group  of  insurance  peo- 
ple some  time  ago— this  will  upset  my  friends 
over  here;  hopefully  not  those  across  the 
House;  certainly  not  the  member  from— well, 
never  mind^that  we  did  not  intend  as  a  gov- 
ernment to  get  into  the  insurance  business. 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Who  is  that  constituent? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  But  I  made  it  very  clear 
that  we  expected  the  insurance  industry  to 
act  in  a  responsible  way  reflecting  the  legiti- 
mate  concerns   of  the   public   generally. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  And  who  gave  generously  to 
the  Premier's  party— yes? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  don't  recall  saying  there 
would  be  a  new  no-fault  insurance  scheme. 

Mr.  Singer:  I've  got  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  don't  think  I  said  that. 
Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  has  been  a  report.  A 
report  was  sent  to  the  minister  responsible, 
which  has  provoked  some  discussion.  I  think 
The  Advocates'  Society  is  one  group  that  has 
registered  some  objection. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Haven't  heard  of 
lawyers— 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  think  The  Advocates' 
Society— and  I  don't  quarrel  with  The  Ad- 
vocates' Society— were  represented  primarily 
by  people  in  the  legal  profession- 
Mr.  Lewis:  Boy,  were  they  mad.  The  loss 
of  clients. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  They  were  upset,  weren't 
they? 

An  hon.  member:  Yes,  so  was  the— 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Yes,  I  think  their  concern, 
though,  was  not— 

Mr.  Singer:  They  have  Tory  presidents  as 
members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  think  in  fairness  it  re- 
lated to— and  I  don't  want  to  get  into  a 
lengthy  discussion— the  question  of  the  appli- 
cation of  the  law  of  tort. 

Mr.  Singer:  That  is  an  important  facet  of 
the  discussion. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  That's  right.  And  I  think 
that  is  somewhat  relevant.  I  think  it  is  also 
important  to  point  out- 
Mr.  Lewis:   It  should  relate  a  little  more 
to  the  law  of  income. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  think  it  is  also  important 
to  point  out,  and  I  say  this  to  our  friends  in 
the  socialist  group- 
Mr.  Lewis:  Aha! 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Well,  I  know  they  are 
trying  to  become  more  conservative  but  they 
haven't  convinced  us  yet. 


MARCH  7,  1974 


53 


Mr.  Lewis:  No,  no,  no. 

An  hon.  member:  A  wolf  in  sheep's  clothing. 

Mr.  Lewis:  On  a  point  of  personal  privilege, 
the  Premier  has  called  me  many  things  be- 
fore but  never  a  socialist  and  I  was  pleased 
to  acknowledge  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Well,  I  used  that  in  the 
very  broad  sense  of  the  word.  I  have  used 
stronger  terminology,  I  must  confess.  Now, 
where  was  I  before  I  was  interrupted? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  Premier  interrupted 
himself. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  was  saying  I  think  part  of 
the  discussion  has  also  made  one  point  very 
obvious  and  I  think  it  needs  to  be  restated 
in  this  House.  Many  people  who  have  referred 
to  this  report  say  that  the  whole  approach 
taken  by  the  Province  of  Ontario  with  re- 
spect to  automobile  insurance  happens  to  be 
one  of  the  best  schemes  operating  anywhere 
in  the  world.  Now  these  are  friends  of  the 
members  opposite  who  have  said  this,  not  me. 

Mr.  Singer:  Are  we  going  to  have  a  com- 
mittee to  study  this? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  doubt  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 

Mr.  Shulman:  A  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Health,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I'm  sorry,  the  hon.  member 
for  Ottawa  East  has  a  supplementary,  which 
I  will  permit. 

Mr.  Roy:  Among  the  proposals  of  the  in- 
surance company  criticized  by  The  Advo- 
cates' Society  I  would  like  to  bring  to  the 
Premier's  attention  is  apparently  the  right 
of  subrogation  by  OHIP  from  the  insurance 
company,  which  as  the  government  knows 
is  something  like  $10  million  a  year.  Does  the 
Premier  agree  with  that  proposal,  which  in 
fact  would  be  the  taxpayers  subsidizing  the 
insurance  company? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  To  be  very  frank,  I  try 
to  take  in  a  lot  of  information.  I  will  con- 
fess to  the  member  that  I  just  haven't  assess- 
ed it  very  carefully  personally  so  I  won't  ofiFer 
any  point  of  view. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 


ROLE  OF  CHIROPRACTORS 

Mr.  Shulman:  To  the  Minister  of  Health, 
Mr.  Speaker:  In  view  of  the  statements  made 
by  certain  chiropractors  last  week,  and  re- 
ported in  the  Ottawa  Citizen,  that  they  are 
treating  under  OHIP  asthma  and  diabetes, 
what  steps  has  the  minister  taken?  Does  he 
intend  to  pay  claims  of  this  nature?  Does  he 
intend  to  do  anything  to  protect  the  public? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller  (Minister  of  Health):  Mr. 
Speaker- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  If  the  members  could 
keep  it  up  for  two  more  minutes,  question 
period  will  be  over. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  honeymoon's  over 
now,  let's  hear  it. 

Mr.  Shulman:  The  minister  hasn't  made  a 
mistake  yet. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Well,  the  question  being 
asked  by  the  member  for  High  Park  is  a  very 
good  one. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  That  in  itself  is  a  change. 
However,  we  are  of  course  looking  at  the 
Tole  of  the  chiropractor  and  under  the  Health 
Disciplines  bill  this  whole  question  is  going 
to  be  discussed.  I'm  not  prepared  at  this 
time  to  say  what  in  fact  is  the  scope  of  prac- 
tice of  a  chiropractor  and  what  is  not.  I  can 
only  say  that  in  due— what  is  the  word?;  in 
the  fullness  of  time?— 

An  hon.  member:  He's  going  places. 

Mr.  Ruston:  The  Premier  better  turn 
around. 

Mr.  Lewis:  How  come  the  minister  looked 
at  the  Premier  to  find  that  out? 

Mr.  Deans:  Going  to  have  to  sit  him  the 
other  way  so  that  he  can  conduct. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  —we  will  in  fact  be  mak- 
ing that  determination. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Supplementary,  if  I  may, 
Mr.  Speaker:  Does  that  mean  that  at  the  pres- 
ent time  chiropractors  and  others— perhaps 
podiatrists— can  treat  asthma  or  cancer  or  dia- 
betes or  anything  else  if  they  wish  and  the 
minister  is  going  to  make  no  limitations  at 
the  present  time  but  we're  going  to  wait  for 
the   fulkess   of  time  to  protect  the  public? 

Mr.  Jessiman:  He  didn't  say  that. 


54 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


An.  hon.  member:  Is  the  minister  going  to 
pay  them  for  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  did  not  say  that.  I 
think  the  member  will  find  that  this  was  one 
of  the  major  issues  in  the  study  of  the  role 
of  the  various  components  of  the  health  de- 
livery system  undertaken  a  couple  of  years 
ago— the  question  as  to  whether  in  fact  the 
practice  of  chiropractic  permitted  the  treat- 
ment of  organic  disorders  or  not.  I  am  quite 
aware  of  the  position  of  the  medical  pro- 
fession on  this.  I,  as  yet,  have  not  tried  to 
reach  an  opinion  on  it.  I  am  going  to  have 
this  information  before  me  when  this  part 
comes  up  and  the  study  is  going  on  now. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  York- 
Forest  Hill. 


GO-URBAN  SYSTEM 

Mr.  P.  G.  Givens  (York-Forest  Hill):  A 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Transportation 
and  Communications:  Is  it  a  fact  that  there 
are  negotiations  taking  place  with  his  ministry 
now  to  alter  the  contract  with  Krauss-MafFei 
and,  if  so,  what  is  the  nature  of  these  nego- 
tiations, and  what  are  the  financial  implica- 
tions of  these  negotiations? 

Hon.  J.  R.  Rhodes  (Minister  of  Transpor- 
tation and  Communications):  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
am  not  aware  of  any  negotiations  going  on 
at  this  time.  I  would  trust  that  the  hon. 
members  opposite  will  appreciate  the  fact 
that  I  am  going  to  take  some  time  to  under- 
stand all  of  the  intricacies  of  this  particular 
situation. 

Mr.  Singer:  Probably  until  the  session  is 
over,  yes. 

Mr.  Martel:  It  is  going  to  take  some  time. 
Even  the  Premier  doesn  t  understand  it  yet. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  Minister  of  Transporta- 
tion and  Communications  has  the  answer  to 
a  question  asked  previously. 


GO-URBAN  SYSTEM 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
member  for  York-Forest  Hill,  who  apparently 
is  going  to  do  this  regularly,  asked  a  question 
yesterday: 

Would  the  Minister  of  Transportation 
and  Communications  explain  why  there  has 
been  delay  in  the  awarding  of  the  guide- 
way  in  the  station  contracts  of  the  Krauss- 


Maff^ei  experiment  in  the  CNE  which  were 
promised  for  December  and  January? 

First  of  all,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  do  not  accept 
that  there  has  been  a  delay.  The  construction 
of  the  guideway  at  the  CNE  is  being  accom- 
plished by  the  developer  under  several  sepa- 
rate subcontracts.  The  first  operation,  after 
the  design  advanced  to  the  point  that  column 
locations  were  known,  was  to  relocate  the 
existing  utilities.  ThLs  relocation  work  was 
done,  pardy  by  subcontract  and  partly  by  the 
utility  companies  involved.  The  tenders  for 
the  utility  relocation  subcontract  closed  Dec. 
12,  1973,  and  this  work  is  now  completed. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  man  of  the  year  said 
they  would  be  let  in  October. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  The  second  operation 
was  the  installation  of  the  column  founda- 
tions. The  tenders  for  the  subcontract  closed 
on  Nov.  7,  1973,  and  this  work  is  approxi- 
mately 50  per  cent  completed,  with  221 
caissons  completed  of  481  caissons  required, 
and  will  be  completed  about  May  1. 

The  third  operation  is  the  construction 
and  erection  of  the  columns  and  beams.  The 
subcontract  for  this  work  was  advertised 
today  and  the  work  will  proceed,  if  weather 
permits,  this  spring.  The  subcontract  for  the 
column  and  beam  components  of  the  guide- 
way  has  been  called  in  sequence  and  within 
an  acceptable  schedule  for  the  work. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Where  is  the  member 
for  York-Forest  Hill  getting  his  information? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  He  got  it  from  the 
Premier's  speech. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Water- 
loo North. 

Mr.  E.  R.  Good  (Waterloo  North):  Yes, 
thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Givens:  The  Premier  is  3%  months 
late  now. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park  had  asked  the  previous  question. 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  the  member  for  York- 
Forest  Hill. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  stand  corrected.  The  hon. 
member  for  Wentworth. 

Mr.  Good:  I  have  a  question  of  the  Min- 
ister of  Revenue. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please.  The  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Wentworth  is  next,  I  am  sorry. 


MARCH  7,  1974 


55 


SPENDING  CEILINGS  IN  EDUCATION 

Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Education.  Is  it  the  inten- 
tion of  the  minister  to  revise  the  spending 
ceilings  in  education  this  current  year  in 
addition  to  the  ones  last  year,  and  if  so,  will 
he  make  the  announcement  soon  in  order 
that  there  will  not  be  any  need  to  restart 
negotiations  after  the  announcement  is  made? 

Hon.  T.  L.  Wells  (Minister  of  Education): 
I  don't  know  exactly  what  the  hon.  member 
is  driving  at  except  that  perhaps  some  boards 
have  been  sending  us  in  briefs  indicating 
that  there  have  been  changes  in  the  economy 
since  the  1974  ceilings  were  announced  in 
August,  1973.  We  have  been  studying  those 
briefs  very  carefully  and  some  time  shortly 
will  make  a  comment  on  all  those  briefs  from 
the  various  boards. 

Mr.  Deans:  Well,  one  supplemexitary  ques^ 
tion:  Does  that  mean  that  there  is  the  pos- 
sibility of  a  revision  in  the  spending  ceilings 
for  education  in  the  Province  of  Ontario  this 
year? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  All  I  can  tell  the  hon. 
member  is  that  we  are  studying  the  briefs 
that  the  various  boards  have  sent  in  indicat- 
ing changes  in  the  cost  of  living  figures  that 
apply  to  their  budgets. 

Mr.  Lewis:  In  other  words,  by  way  of 
supplementary,  the  minister  is  going  to  revise 
the  ceilings  upwards,  allegedly  to  meet  the 
inflationary  spiral,  but  in  fact  to  try  to  take 
the  heat  off  present  government  policy? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  didn't  say  that  at  all.  I 
said  we  were  studying  the  briefs  that  were 
sent  in.  Now  surely,  as  responsible  persons 
over  here  in  a  ministry,  we  should  study  what 
boards,  in  good  faith,  send  in  to  us. 

Mr.  Lewis:  We  await  an  aimouncement. 
The  minister  should  make  the  announcement 
soon  because  negotiations  are  under  way. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Those  briefe  have  been 
sent  in,  they  are  being  studied  and  they  will 
all  be  answered.  They  haven't  been  answered 

yet. 

Mr.    Deans:    Okay.    Please  don't   wait  too 

long. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for 
Waterloo  North. 


ASSESSMENTS  ON  MOBILE  HOMES 

Mr.    Good:    Thank    you,    Mr.    Speaker.    A 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Revenue.  In  view 


of  the  fact  that  recent  court  decisions  have 
allowed  that  assessments  can  be  made  on 
mobile  homes  under  the  general  provisions  of 
the  Assessment  Act,  which  was'  not  previously 
dione,  does  the  minister  consider  that  this  is 
the  intent  of  the  present  legislation?  If  it  is 
not,  would  he  take  steps  to  amend  the  legis- 
lation, or  would  he  see  that  the  Municipal 
Act  is  amended  so  that  municipalities  cannot 
put  their  $20  per  month  levy  on  the  same 
mobile  homes  which  are  being  assessed  under 
the  general  provisions  of  the  Assessment  Act? 

Hon.  A.  K.  Meen  (Minister  of  Revenue): 
Mr.  Speaker,  my  ministry  will  have  to  take  a 
look  at  that  court  case  and  determine  whether 
that  interpretation  is  in  fact  the  one  which 
the  government  intended  to  be  placed  on  the 
section.  If  it  should  turn  out  that  it  is  not,  I 
think  we  would  have  to  look  very  carefully 
at  suitable  amendments.  If  those  amendments 
are  required  to  be  made  under  the  Municipal 
Act,  they  would  be  made,  of  course,  in  an- 
other ministry,  but  if  they  were  to  be  made 
under  the  Assessment  Act,  then  it  would  be 
a  question  for  my  own  ministry.  I  may  have 
more  I  can  say  on  that  in  the  not  too  distant 
future. 

Mr.  Good:  Just  one  short  supplementary: 
Could  the  minister  assure  the  members  of 
the  House  that  people  living  in  mobile  homes 
will  not  be  subject  to  double  taxation  under 
the  two  respective  Acts?  This  is  what  people 
want  to  know. 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Speaker,  certainly 
it  is  not  the  intention  of  the  government  that 
the  owners  and  residents  of  mobile  homes 
would  be  double-taxed. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Petitions. 

Presenting  reports. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow  presented  the  report  of 
the  Ministry  of  Government  Services'  for  the 
year  ending  March  31,  1973,  and  the  report 
of  the  Provincial  Auditor  for  the  year  ending 
March  31,  1973. 

!Hon.  Mr.  Irvine  presented  the  general  de- 
velopment agreement  and  the  federal-provin- 
cial subsidiary  agreement  for  regional  eco- 
nomic development  in  the  Cornwall  area 
which  were  signed  between  the  federal  and 
Ontario  governments  at  Cornwall  on  Feb.  26, 
1974. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Motions. 

Introduction  of  bills. 


56 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


PRACTISE  OF  DENTAL 
PROSTHESIS  ACT 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled,  An  Act  to  provide  for  the  Practise 
of  Dental  Prosthesis. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  bill 
allows  denturists  to  take  impressions,  con- 
struct and  fit  complete  upper,  lower  and 
partial  dentures,  and  deal  directly  with  the 
public.  This  is  the  same  bill  that  was  before 
the  Legislature  in  my  name  during  the  last 
sessions. 


ment  of  Regional  Economic  Expansion,  and  a 
subsidiary  agreement  under  which  the  gov- 
ernments of  Canada  and  Ontario  will  con- 
tribute approximately  $14  million  to  develop- 
ment projects  in  Cornwall.  In  the  coming 
months  I  hope  we  will  sign  additional  agree- 
ments covering  other  areas.  The  purpose  of 
this  bill  is  to  allow  municipalities  to  join  us 
in  both  financing  and  undertaking  a  broad 
range  of  regional  economic  development  pro- 
grammes. 

Mr.  Speaker,  we  are  anxious  to  have  this 
bill  passed  quickly  so  that  we  can  enter  into 
an  agreement  v^dth  the  city  of  Cornwall.  I 
will  be  taking  it  through  the  legislative  proc- 


MILK  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart  moves  first  reading  of 
bill  intituled.  An  Act  to  amend  the  Milk  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food):  Mr.  Speaker,  briefly  the  bill 
simply  follows  up  on  changes  that  were  made 
in  the  Milk  Act  last  year  and  transfers  cer- 
tain powers  from  the  commission  to  the 
director  of  the  dairy  branch. 


DEVELOPMENTAL  SERVICES  ACT  1974 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle  moves  first  reading  of 
bill  intituled,  the  Developmental  Services  Act 
1974. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Hon.  R.  Brunelle  (Minister  of  Community 
and  Social  Services):  Mr.  Speaker,  the  pur- 
pose of  this  bill  is  to  transfer  administrative 
responsibility  for  facilities  for  mentally  re- 
tarded persons  from  the  Ministry  of  Health 
to  the  Ministry  of  Commimity  and  Social 
Services.  This  bill  is  part  of  a  broad  policy  to 
implement  the  provision  of  a  complete  range 
of  social  services  in  the  community  for 
mentally  retarded  persons. 


MUNICIPAL  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Irvine  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled.    An   Act   to   amend   the   Municipal 

Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Hon.  D.  R.  Irvine  (Minister  without  Port- 
folio): Mr.  Speaker,  on  Feb.  26  the  Treasurer 
(Mr.  White)  had  the  privilege  of  signing  a 
general  development  agreement  relating  to 
activities  in   Ontario  of  the  federal  Depart- 


ONTARIO  HUMAN  RIGHTS  CODE 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon  moves  first  reading  of 
bill  intituled.  An  Act  to  amend  the  Ontario 
Human  Rights  Code. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill 
provides  for  three  minor  amendments  to 
clarify  the  interpretation  of  the  code,  and 
one  amendment  which  is  of  a  housekeeping 
nature. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  thought  the  minister  was  go- 
ing to  take  over  the  investigation  into  the 
Human  Rights  Commission. 


MENTAL  HEALTH  ACT 

Mr.  Roy  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in- 
tituled, An  Act  to  amend  the  Mental  Health 
Act. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of  this 
bill  is  to  safeguard  the  rights  of^ individuals 
deemed  abnormal  by  police  oflBcers,  who  are 
taken  to  mental  institutions  against  their  will. 
This  bill  would  make  an  amendiment  under 
section  10  of  the  Mental  Health  Act  to  re- 
quire that  a  person  who  has  been  detained 
under  that  section  of  the  Act  be  given  a 
medical  examination  and  brought  before  a 
justice  of  the  peace  within  24  hours  to  justify 
his  detention.  As  the  Act  is  presently 
written,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  are  no  safeguards 
for  individuals  and  this  is  a  potentially 
dangerous  situation. 

Mr.  R.  M.  Johnston  (St.  Catharines):   Mr. 
Speaker- 
Mr.  Speaker:  All  right. 


MARCH  7,  1974 


57 


Mr.  R.  M.  Johnston  moves  first  reading  of 
Bill  Pr2. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Too  late. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  member  just  bombed. 
He'll  have  to  try  again. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  vdsh  to  inform  the  hon. 
member  that  the  time  has  not  approached, 
at  this  point,  for  the  reading  of  private  bills. 
They  haven't  gone  through  the  private  bills 
committee;  the  procedural  affairs  committee, 
in  fact. 

Orders  of  the  day. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  The  first  order,  con- 
sideration of  the  speech  of  the  Honourable 
the  Lieutenant  Governor  at  the  opening  of 
the  session. 


THRONE  SPEECH  DEBATE 

Mr.  Beckett  moves,  seconded  by  Mr. 
Havrot,  that  a  humble  address  be  presented 
to  the  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor 
as  follows: 

To  the  Honourable  W.  Ross  Macdonald, 
PC,  CD,  QC,  LL.D,  Lieutenant  Governor 
of  Ontario; 

May  it  please  Your  Honour: 
We,  Her  Majesty's  most  dutiful  and  loyal' 
subjects  of  the  legislative  assembly  of  the 
Province  of  Ontario  now  assembled,  beg 
leave  to  thank  Your  Honour  for  the 
gracious  speech  Your  Honour  has  addressed 
to  us. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Brant- 
ford. 

Mr.  R.  B.  Beckett  (Brantford):  Mr.  Speaker, 
it  is  an  honour  and  a  privilege  for  me  to  be 
called  upon  to  move  this  address  to  His 
Honour  the  Lieutenant  Governor.  I  am  cer- 
tain all  members  of  this  Legislature  will  join 
me  in  thanking  His  Honour  for  his  words  of 
confidence  and  inspiration  which  will  surely 
guide  us  well  in  our  deliberations  in  the 
days  and  nights  ahead;  deliberations  which 
will,  indeed,  have  a  decided  effect  on  all 
of  us  in  Ontario  in  the  future  years. 

I  am  sure  all  members  of  this  Legislature 
will  join  me  in  an  expression  of  appreciation 
to  His  Honour  for  the  very  excellent  manner 
in  which  he  has  represented  Her  Majesty 
the  Queen  during  his  term  of  oflBce  as  Lieu- 
tenant Governor  of  Ontario.  We  all  regret 
that  his  term  of  office  is  shortly  to  be  com- 
pleted. 


The  Lieutenant  Governor  has  not  spared 
himself  in  his  constant  activities  throughout 
this  province.  He  has  visited  most  parts  of 
this  province  and  has  left  an  indelible  im- 
pression of  the  dignity  and  graciousness  that 
he  has  given  to  his  high  oflBce. 

He  has  taken  a  very  special  interest  in  the 
young  people  of  this  province  and  he  has 
inspired  them.  He  has  an  excellent  sense  of 
humour  and  has  established  a  rapport  with 
young  and  old  that  is  the  envy  of  all  people 
in  political  life. 

I'm  very  pleased  to  have  this  opportunity 
to  place  on  the  oflBcial  record  of  this  hon. 
assembly  my  personal  appreciation  of  the 
Lieutenant  Governor,  since  his  home  is  in  my 
riding  of  Brantford. 

As  all  hon.  members  are  aware,  W.  Ross 
Macdonald  served  the  citizens  of  Brantford 
for  many  years  as  the  Member  of  Parliament 
for  Brantford.  He  has  served  as  Speaker  of 
the  House  of  Commons  in  Ottawa,  as  govern- 
ment leader  of  the  Senate,  and  as  a  Senator. 
His  many  accomplishments  in  the  public 
service  are  too  numerous  to  mention  today; 
however,  we  will  all  have  the  opportunity  to 
honour  this  great  Canadian  later  this  month 
and  I'm  sure  we  are  all  looking  forward  to 
this  happy  occasion. 

I  would  be  remiss  if  I  did  not  mention 
the  forthcoming  appointment  of  Mrs.  Pauline 
McGibbon  as  Her  Majesty's  representative  in 
Ontario.  I  am  sure  all  members  are  looking 
forward  to  Mrs.  McGibbon's  tenure  of  office 
with  great  anticipation  and  that  she  will 
bring  to  this  high  oflBce  the  graciousness  and 
distinction  to  which  we  have  become  accus- 
tomed. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  delighted  to  see  you 
back  in  the  chair  with  your  accustomed  good 
humour  and  apparent  good  health.  I  believe 
all  members  share  in  the  appreciation  of  the 
diflBcult  job  you  do  so  well.  There  are,  of 
course,  occasions  when  some  members  in  the 
heat  of  debate  will  be  unhappy  with  your 
decisions.  However,  I  am  confident  that  when 
the  heat  of  battle  cools  all  members  will 
agree  you  have  served  with  distinction  and 
with  fairness  to  all,  and  we  are  delighted  to 
see  you  there. 

I  wish  also  to  congratulate  the  new  mem- 
bers of  cabinet  who  have  new  responsibilities 
in  the  challenging  days  that  lie  ahead.  I  am 
sure  they  will  once  again  demonstrate  the 
qualities  of  leadership  which  have  made 
Ontario  the  great  province  that  it  is  today. 
The  former  cabinet  members  deserve  our 
respect  and  appreciation  for  their  years  of 
excellent  service  to  the  people  of  the  prov- 


58 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


ince.  I  am  delighted  that  we  will  continue 
to  have  the  benefit  of  their  experience  and 
counsel  in  this  assembly. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  Speech  from  the  Throne 
indicates  to  this  assembly  and  to  the  citizens 
of  this  province  the  concerns  of  the  govern- 
ment and  its  proposals  to  deal  with  these 
concerns.  I  feel  that  the  speech  delivered  last 
Tuesday  by  His  Honour  was  an  excellent 
Throne  Speech  because  it  clearly  indicates 
that  this  government  recognizes  its  respon- 
sibilities, is  prepared  to  accept  these  respon- 
sibilities and,  most  important,  to  act  in  a 
responsible  manner. 

The  Throne  Speech  faced  up  to  today's 
realities  of  inflation  and  the  energy  problem. 
It  rightly  placed  inflation  as  a  country-wide 
problem  that  can  only  be  dealt  with  on  a 
country-wide  basis.  It  made  no  pie  in  the 
sky  proposals  on  either  inflation  or  energy 
but  it  did  promise  the  essential  co-operation 
with  the  government  of  Canada  and  the  other 
provinces  so  that  these  problems  can  be 
minimized  to  the  benefit  of  all. 

The  programmes  announced  to  improve  es- 
sential services  to  remote  areas  of  the  prov- 
ince deserve  the  support  of  all  members  of 
this  assembly.  I  think  it  is  important  to  re- 
member that  the  speech  emphasized  consul- 
tation and  co-operation  with  those  wishing  to 
participate.  The  Polar  Gas  project  is  an  excit- 
ing project  with  great  future  significance  to 
our  province.  A  James  Bay  area  port  could 
bring  benefits  to  that  area  and  to  all  the 
province. 

I  am  pleased  to  note  the  improved  loan 
programmes  and  financial  assistance  will  con- 
tinue to  be  available  to  tourist  operators, 
small  businesses  and  service  industries.  The 
key  word  here  is  improve  because  although 
the  loans  and  assistance  have  been  available 
the  conditions,  in  my  opinion,  have  been  too 
restrictive.  Small  businesses  are  the  backbone 
of  Ontario's  economy  and  they  merit  real 
assistance.  Small  businesses  provide  a  great 
deal  of  varied  employment  for  our  citizens. 

Having  served  on  the  select  committee  on 
the  utilization  of  educational  facilities,  I  wel- 
come the  statement  that  the  government  pro- 
poses to  expand  academic  and  cultural  oppor- 
tunities in  the  open  sector  of  post-secondary 
education.  The  extension  (rf  educational 
broadcasts  within  the  province  is  a  further 
step  that  will  provide  a  needed  service  which 
has  been  largely  confined  to  the  Metro  To- 
ronto area.  New  and  innovative  educational 
materials  for  school  and  college  students  as 
well  as  persons  learning  at  home  is  good 
news  for  those  interested  or  concerned  with 
such  needs.  Let's  get  on  with  it. 


I  am  sure  that  all  members  will  welcome 
the  announcement  of  an  income  support  pro- 
gramme to  aid  Ontario's  older  citizens  and 
for  the  disabled.  These  two  groups  of  our 
population  have  been  caught  in  the  infla- 
tionary spiral.  The  only  probable  disagree- 
ment will  be  in  how  much  support  and  how 
soon  will  the  support  be  available.  I  have,  as 
every  other  member  of  this  House  has,  I  am 
sure,  many  people  in  my  riding  whom  I 
will  recommend  for  such  income  support.  The 
proposal  for  a  prescription  drug  plan  for 
senior  citizens  will  also  be  good  news.  We  all 
must  know  of  many  senior  citizens  whose 
lives  will  be  made  easier  with  such  assist- 
ance. 

The  new  programmes  for  assistance  to  co- 
operative daycare  centres  in  low-income  areas, 
the  making  available  of  resources  to  expand 
high  priority  services  such  as  those  for  handi- 
capped children,  children  from  low-income 
families  and  native  children,  are  all  commend- 
able. But  the  proposal  I  like  best  is  the  re- 
view of  the  regulations  with  the  aim  of  re- 
moving unnecessary  impediments  to  the  crea- 
tion of  new  services. 

iMr.  Speaker,  not  being  trained  in  law  I  do 
not  pretend  to  imdierstand  all  of  the  Ontario 
Law  Reform  Commission's  report  on  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  courts.  However,  I  am 
sure  that  there  are  more  than  enough  in  this 
House  who  are  trained  in  law,  and)  if  they 
can  agree  on  a  plarmed  programme  of  imple- 
mentation for  judicial  areas  and  for  the  rota- 
tion of  judges  and  trial  centres  throughout 
these  areas  after  consultation  with  those 
affected,  I  will  be  content. 

If,  however,  this  should  mean  the  appoint- 
ment of  an  additional  provincial  judge  in  the 
provincial  court  in  Brantford,  I  will  be 
grateful.  The  city  coimcil  of  Brantford  and 
the  Brant  Coimty  Bar  Association  have  re- 
quested such  an  additional  appointment  to 
facilitate  the  court  procedtures  in  Brant 
county.  The  present  judge  has  had  no  other 
recourse  than  to  adijourn  cases  from  February 
to  June  because  of  his  heavy  docket. 

I  welcome  the  new  procedures  in  the  Min- 
istry of  Correctional  Services,  the  proposal 
for  legislation  on  consumer  prodtict  warran- 
ties and  guarantees,  and  new  redress  pro- 
cedures in  the  field  of  the  Ministry  of  Con- 
sumer and  Commercial  Relations. 

I  am  sure  that  all  members,  in  our  un- 
official role  as  ombudsmen,  have  been  frus- 
trated in  the  past  in  these  matters  of  better 
protection  for  consumers.  Caveat  Emptor— let 
the  buyer  beware— is  not  a  good  slogan  in 
these  days  of  high-pressure  sales  made  to  un- 


MARCH  7,  1974 


59 


wary   purchasers  who  too  often  are   in   the 
low-income  bracket. 

Before  some  hon.  members  feel  I  am  too 
happy,  I  would  like  to  indicate  that  I  am  not 
happy  with  some  of  the  implications  of  a 
mandatory  use  of  automobile  seat  belts.  I  am 
not  happy  with  a  law  that  apparently  would 
be  so  difficult  to  enforce  and  so  easy  to  evade. 
I  also  have  been  told  of  several  incidents 
where  survival  of  an  automobile  dtiver  or 
passenger  has  been  possible  because  the  seat 
belt  was  not  being  used.  People  have  been 
trapped,  I  have  been  informed,  by  seat  belts 
in  automobile  accidents. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposition): 
Is  the  member  going  to  vote  for  the  bill? 

Mr.  Beckett:  I  am  sure  that  this  matter  will 
receive  much  attention  before  legislation  is 
passed,  and  at  this  time  I  will  await  further 
evidence  before  casting  my  vote. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Very  healthy  attitude. 

An  hon.  member:  He's  going  to  abstain. 

Mr.  Beckett:  I  particularly  approve  of  the 
special  efforts  that  will  be  made  to  encour- 
age local  initiatives  for  community-based 
mental-retardation  services,  including  new 
community  residences.  Assistance  to  a  larger 
number  of  physically  and  mentally  disabled 
persons  in  their  own  communities  is  impor- 
tant. Such  persons  are  nearly  always  happier 
in  familiar  surroundings  and  not  in  some 
massive  far-away  institution.  The  burden  of 
extensive  and  costly  travel  for  visiting  pur- 
poses is  also  removed  from  the  families  of 
such  persons. 

'The  health  planning  task  force  report, 
chaired  by  Dr.  Eraser  Mustard,  and  its  pro- 
posals for  the  further  development  of  a  com- 
prehensive health  plan  will  be  studied  with 
eager  anticipation.  Dr.  Mustard  has  an  im- 
pressive reputation  and  I  hope  his  task  force 
report  is  as  frank  as  he  has  been  in  person. 

I  welcome  the  new  housing  proposals.  In 
my  own  riding  of  Brantford,  where  the  major 
urban  centre  is  the  city  of  Brantford,  there 
is  a  major  building  boom  in  reisidential  units 
but  the  shortage  of  serviced  land  will  shortly 
curtail  this  programme. 

Land  costs  are  already  too  high  and  will 
likely  continue  to  rise  as  the  shortage  con- 
tinues. In  Brantford,  withoilt  the  small  On- 
tario Housing  Home  Ownership  Madfe  Easy 
programme  this  year,  it  would  be  nearly  im- 
possible for  the  low-  or  medium-income 
earners  to  purchase  a  home.  My  personal  con- 
viction is  that  these  land  costs  will  not  come 
down    or    even    level    off    until    there    is    a 


surplus  of  lots  available.  This  can  only  be 
achieved  by  the  development  of  serviced  land 
in  the  surrounding  township  of  Brantford. 
Such  development  can  be  achieved  if  the 
future  of  local  government  in  Brant  coimty 
is  shortly  resolved  and  some  further  assistance 
is  granted  to  municipalities  to  provide  sewer 
facilities. 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  Brantford 
might  try  some  public  ownership  as  well. 

Mr.  Beckett:  The  Ontario  Housing  Corp. 
owns  approximately  1,000  acres  in  a  land 
bank  in  the  township  of  Brantford.  The  city 
could  physically  service  such  lands  soon  if 
municipal  boundaries  are  established  at  local 
government's  request  and.  with  ministerial 
approval.  Financial  assistance  by  the  prov- 
ince will  be  necessary  to  e^yedite  such 
mammoth  sewer  construction.  Lands  are  be^ 
ing  held  in  our  area  by  the  private  sector  for 
future  development  and  the  majority  of  the 
land  is  still  under  agricultural  production,  but 
if  it  were  not  I  would  request  the  imple- 
mentation of  government  assistance  to  ensure 
the  continued  agricultural  prodiiction  use  of 
these  lands.  I  believe  this  to  be  a  legitimate 
and  necessary  government  control. 

I'm  encouraged  by  the  neighbourhood 
improvement  programmes,  the  provincial 
home  renewal  programme,  and  hope  that 
these  plans  can  be  facilitated  as  soon  as 
possible. 

This  year  the  citizens  of  Brant  county  and 
Brantford  are  celebrating  the  centainial  of 
the  invention  of  the  telephone  by  Dr.  Alexan- 
der Graham  Bell  in  Brantford  in  1874. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  There  has  been  trouble 
ever  since. 

Mr.  Beckett:  To  those  of  you  who  thought 
that  Don  Ameche  in  the  Metro-Goldwyn- 
Mayer  production  invented  the  telephone  in 
Boston,  USA,  I  would  refer  you  to  the  offi- 
cial history  text  that  will  shoW^  that  Dr.  Bell 
in  his  Own  words  and  handwriting  confirmed 
that  the  telephone  was  indeed  invented  at 
Brantford.  These  celebrations  commenced  on 
Jan.  1,  1974,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  will  continue 
throughout  the  whole  year.  On  July  7  the 
Bell  centennial  parade  with  th^  theme, 
"Thank  you,  Dr.  Bell,"  will  be  held  with 
over  100  floats  and  many  marching  bands. 
I  take  pleasure  inviting  the  hon.  members 
of  this  House  and  their  families  to  attend 
and  see  what  will  probably  be  the  largest 
parade  ever  held  in  Canada. 

Mr.  C.  E.  Mcllyisen  ( Oshawa) :  Will  the 
member  for  Brantford  put  us  up?       ,  v,    , 


60 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Beckett:  Perhaps  the  members  of  this 
House  could  put  aside  political  feelings  for 
one  day  and  enter  a  float.  The  theme  of 
such  a  float  could  be  our  appreciation  to 
Dr.  Bell  for  providing  us  with  such  a  useful 
means  of  easy  communication  between  our- 
selves here  in  Toronto  and  with  the  citizens 
in  our  ridings. 

I'm  sure  that  some  hon.  members  will 
have  wished,  as  I  often  have,  that  Dr.  Bell 
had  stayed  in  bed  instead  of  inventing  a 
telephone,  but  if  he  hadn't  some  other  scien- 
tist would  have,  and  it  probably  would  not 
have  been  in  Brantford,  Ont.,  but  in  a  for- 
eign land  and  we  would  have  had  to  learn 
a  foreign  language. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Timis- 
kaming, 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Now  we  know  why  you  sent 
around  the  Turns. 

Mr.  E.  M.  Havrot  ( Timiskaming ) :  Thank 
you,  Mr.  Speaker.  Wait  till  I  get  around  to 
that.  I'll  get  around  to  him. 

It  is  indeed  a  pleasure  and  a  privilege  for 
me  to  second  the  motion  of  the  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Brantford  for  the  adoption  of  the 
Speech  from  the  Throne. 

I  too  would  like  to  pay  tribute  to  His 
Honour  the  Lieutenant  Governor  for  the 
manner  in  which  he  has  carried  out  the 
duties  and  responsibilities  of  his  office.  He 
has  combined  charm  and  good  humour  with 
dignity  and  enthusiasm  and  vigour  with 
decorum. 

Before  I  get  on  with  the  details  of  my 
speech,  I  would  like  to  make  a  few  com- 
ments on  my  observations  as  a  first-term 
member  of  this  Legislature  during  the  past 
three  sessions.  First  of  all,  Mr.  Speaker,  I'm 
very  much  impressed  with  your  great  dedi- 
cation and  ability  in  handling  the  daily  com- 
plex problems  of  this  House.  No  individual 
member,  whether  on  the  government  side 
or  in  opposition,  spends  as  much  time  in  the 
Legislature  listening  to  the  countless  hours 
of  debate  as  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  For  this  rea- 
son I  firmly  believe  you  must  have  the  most 
calloused  pair  of  ears  of  any  human  being 
in  Ontario. 

Mr.  Speaker,  my  impressions  of  the  oppo- 
sition members  in  this  Legislature  leave  me 
wondering  how  such  talent— listen  to  this— 
talent,  is  wasted  in  countless  hours  of  non- 
sensical childish  bickering.  I  am  told  that 
many  of  the  speeches  made  are  replays  from 
previous    years,    like    warmed-up    cofl'ee,    flat 


and  bitter,  or  like  baloney,  lots  of  filler  but 
very  little  meat. 

I  realize  it  is  very  diflBcult  for  opposition 
members  to  find  genuine  criticism  of  good 
government.  However,  I  would  assume  that 
they  would  at  least  spend  some  more  time 
looking  for  ways  and  means  of  further  im- 
proving our  system  of  government,  rather 
than  constantly  bellyaching  and  grand- 
standing. 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  Maybe 
the  hon.  member  should  follow  the  first  rule 
—and  that  is  that  he  can't  read  a  speech. 

Mr.  Havrot:  I  don't  know  which  is  worse, 
my  sore  back  or  his  voice. 

Much  has  been  said  about  televising  the 
debates  from  this  Legislature  for  the  people 
of  Ontario.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  very  much 
welcome  such  a  suggestion  as  it  would  once 
and  for  all  give  the  taxpayers  of  Ontario  a 
clearer  picture  as  to  how  our  democratic 
process  operates,  rather  than  relying  on 
biased  reports  from  the  press  gallery. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Havrot:   I  am  coming  to  them  now. 

As  one  who  has  great  concern  for  the 
welfare  of  my  fellow  man,  I  am  pleased  to 
provide  temporary  relief  to  the  opposition 
members  with  a  roll  of  tablets  for  "stomach 
orders  and  bellyaches"  in  the  hope  that  it 
may  create  some  harmony  in  this  House 
for  at  least  several  days. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  He  is  going  to  give  it  to 
the  rump  as  well,  I  hope. 

Mr.  Havrot:  No,  the  members  opposite 
are  the  only  fellows  who  will  get  it— don't 
worry. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  Premier  (Mr.  Davis) 
is  interested  in  what  the  member  has  to  say. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  So  is 
the  whole  cabinet. 

Mr.  Havrot:   Thank  you  very  much. 
Mr.    Speaker,    I    am    extremely    proud    to 
represent  my  people  in  the  riding  of  Timis- 
kaming, which  I  may  add  is  a  big  and  beau- 
tiful area- 
Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 
Mr.  Havrot:  —almost  as  big  as  your  mouth. 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please. 

Mr.  Havrot:  It  is  rated  by  the  Ministry  of 
Natural  Resources  and  the  Ministry  of  Indus- 


MARCH  7,  1974 


61 


try  and  Tourism  as  one  of  the  most  beautiful 
ridings  in  the  province.  It  stretches  from 
south  of  Latchford  for  over  100  miles  to 
north  of  Kirkland  Lake.  It  is  bounded  by  the 
Quebec  border  to  the  east  and  reaches  past 
Elk  Lake  to  the  west.  It  is  surrounded  by 
Cochrane  South  to  the  north.  Nickel  Belt  to 
the  west,  and  Nipissing  to  the  south;  and 
considering  the  political  aflRliation  of  the 
members  from  those  ridings,  I  may  be  for- 
given for  stating  that  there  are  ample  reasons 
for  regarding  Timiskaming  as  one  of  the  more 
intelligent  districts  in  the  north. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  One  can't  say  that  for  the 
member. 

Mr.  Havrot:  It  is  a  riding  which  is  largely 
dependent  upon  mining,  lumbering,  farming, 
tourism  and  light  manufacturing. 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  And  Ed 
Havrot. 

Mr.  Havrot:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  greatest  area 
of  concern  is  the  lack  of  employment  oppor- 
tunities for  the  hundreds  of  capable  young 
people  graduating  annually  from  our  high 
schools  and  community  colleges  who  are 
lured  to  the  bright  spots  of  Toronto  and  the 
job  opportunities  of  the  "golden  horseshoe." 
The  north  has  become  an  educational  factory 
for  business  and  industry  of  southern  Ontario. 

Mr.  Speaker,  as  a  major  step  to  stem  the 
flow  of  our  youth  from  the  north  I  would  like 
to  strongly  urge  my  government  to  take  im- 
mediate action  to  implement  the  Maple 
Mountain  project,  which  is  located  30  miles 
west  of  the  town  of  .Haileybury. 

Mr.  W.  Ferrier  (Cochrane  South): 
"George,"  we  wiU  send  you  these  Tums  over. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  Solicitor  General  (Mr. 
Kerr)  just  fell  off  his  chair  on  that. 

Mr.  D.  W.  Ewen  (Wentworth  North):  Put 
your  hand  up,  "Comer,"  we  will  let  you  go 
to  the  bathroom. 

Mr.  Havrot:  During  the  past  two  years  this 
project  has  received  a  tremendous  amount  of 
publicity  by  all  the  media  across  the  prov- 
ince. I  might  also  add  that  it  has  received 
enthusiastic  support  from  municipal  councils 
in  northeastern  Ontario  from  Sudbury  to 
Kapuskasing,  representing  almost  a  quarter 
of  a  million  people. 

The  cost  of  this  proposed  project  has  been 
kicked  around  like  a  football,  ranging  any- 
where from  $40  million  to  $100  million.  An- 
other misconception  has  been  that  the  project 


will  be  funded  entirely  from  the  public 
sector.  This  is  not  so  and  here  are  the  facts: 

Stage  one:  Total  estimated  expenditure— 
$42  million.  Forty-six  percent  of  this  amount 
would  be  funded  over  a  five-year  peiiod  by 
the  provincial  and  federal  governments 
yielding  an  SVa  per  cent  return  on  investnient, 
and  the  balance  of  54  per  cent  from  the 
private  sector. 

Of  more  than  30  sites  thoroughly  investi- 
gated throughout  many  areas  of  the  province, 
Maple  Mountain  was  the  only  site  that  had 
all  the  ingredients  to  develop  a  year-round 
resort  community  providing  a  full  range  of 
recreational  activity  to  attract  large  numbers 
of  visitors  for  extended  periods  of  stay. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  hear  it  is  pretty  cold  for 
skiing  in  the  winter  up  there. 

Mr.  Havrot:  Well,  we  live  up  there.  How 
does   my  friend  figure  that  one? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  It's  about  25  deg.  colder  than 
the  Laurentians. 

Mr.  Havrot:  It  is  2  deg.  colder,  the 
statistics  prove,  my  friend. 

The  potential  economic  and  social  benefits 
to  the  region  are  enormous.  Through  the  con- 
struction of  stage  one  alone  over  1,200 
people  would  be  employed.  Once  in  opera- 
tion, stage  one  would  employ  over  900 
people.  Most  of  those  would  commute  from 
the  Tritown  area. 

It  is  estimated  that  this  project  would 
attract  up  to  17.6  million  visitor  dollars  an- 
nually, compared  with  $7.3  million  for  the 
entire  riding  in  1972,  not  to  mention  those 
dollars  which  will  be  spent  directly  off-site 
and  throughout  the  region.  The  greatest  per- 
centage of  all  these  dollars,  through  labour 
costs  and  the  purchase  of  services,  goods  and 
supplies,  will  remain  in  the  north. 

Every  effort  will  be  made  to  encourage 
local  individual  and  corporate  financial  par- 
ticipation in  the  project,  and  such  would 
ensure  that  even  more  dollars  would  remain 
in  the  north.  I  might  add,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
many  northerners  have  already  expressed  a 
genuine  interest  to  invest  in  this  most  excit- 
ing project.  I  urge  the  government  to  con- 
sider what  this  project  will  mean,  not  just  to 
my  riding,  but  to  the  entire  north  country. 

Tourism  has  to  be  developed  in  the  north 
as  our  mines  and  forests  will  not  last  for- 
ever. It  can  and  will  provide  new  oppor- 
tunities for  private  capital.  It  can  provide 
many  hundreds  of  jobs  for  yoimg  people  who 
want  to  live  in  the  north.  If  we  have  a 
major   tourist   attraction,   international  in   its 


62 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


scope,  then  we  will  see  tourists  spill  out  all 
over  the  north,  but  we  desperately  need 
some  magnet  to  draw  them  into  the  area. 

Mr,  Cassidy:  They  will  take  the  bus  to 
Cobalt  and  buy  a  cup  of  coffee,  eh? 

Mr.  Havrot:  That  magnet,  Mr.  Speaker, 
is  the  Maple  Mountain  project,  which  con- 
tains immense  potential  for  revitalizing  the 
north  country.  I  didn't  hear  the  member— 
a  little  louder  please. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  They  will  take  the  bus  to 
Cobalt  and  buy  a  cup  of  coffee.  That  is  the 
spin-off  from  that  proposition.  All  the  rest 
of  the  region  will  get  nothing  more. 

Mr.  Havrot:  That's  just  about  the  size  of 
the  member's  mind— about  the  size  of  a  cup 
of  coffee. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Havrot:  Another  great  area  of  concern 
to  me,  Mr.  Speaker,  has  been  the  decision  on 
the  part  of  most  ministries  at  Queen's  Park 
to  locate  the  bulk  of  regional  and  district 
oflBces  in  the  larger,  more  expensive  and 
prosperous  communities  of  the  north— com- 
pletely ignoring  the  smaller,  less  prosperous 
communities  which  are  struggling  for  sur- 
vival. I  strongly  feel  that  if  Ae  north  is  to 
grow,  it  must  grow  together  and  not  in  the 
isolated  population   growth  areas. 

This  problem  of  centralization  and  bureau- 
cratic thinking  extends  to  the  Ontario  North- 
land Railway.  Despite  all  kinds  of  eflForts  at 
the  political  level  to  make  the  ONR  a  vital 
andi  imaginative  development  growth,  it  is 
regarded  by  most  northerners  as  solely  a 
North  Bay  concern. 

To  elaborate  on  this  point,  North  Bay  does 
not  produce  a  dollar's  worth  of  revenue  for 
the  ONR,  yet  the  main  operations  are  con- 
centrated in  the  Bay.  The  communities  along 
the  system  which  help  prodtice  the  revenues 
are  gradually  being  downgraded  with  staff, 
workshop  and  equipment  reductions  —  and 
in  some  cases  are  being  phased  out  com- 
pletely. 

il  would  also  like  to  suggest  that  we  need 
yoimger  and  more  vigorous  commissioners 
and  the  appointment  of  a  commissioner  to 
represent  labour  on  the  ONR— 

Mr.  Ferrier:  They  need  a  new  chairman 
too. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  They  need  a  new  chairman, 
yes.  Take  the  land  speculators  out  of  the 
ONR. 


Mr.  Havrot:  The  members  opposite  couldn't 
hold  a  candle  to  him.  They  couldti't  hold  a 
candle  to  the  chairman.  The  only  thing  they 
have  got  longer  than  he  has  is  a  tongue.  I 
congratulate  my  government  on  the  improve- 
ment to  the  norOntair  service  and  the  utiliza- 
tion of  a  new  municipal  airstrip  at  Kirkland 
Lake.  This  excellent  facility  now  provides 
a  connecting  link  for  people  in  the  Kirkland 
Lake,  E*nglehart,  Earlton,  and  Tritown  with 
Air  Canada  and  Sudbury— 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Is  the  member  bucking  for 
the  chairman's  job? 

Mr.  Havrot:  —  on  two  direct  return  flights 
daily  from  Toronto  with  an  average  flying 
time  of  only  two  hours  each  way. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  people  of  the  north  ap- 
preciate the  excellent  commimity  colfeges, 
but  I  feel  that  the  time  has  come  for  a  com- 
plete survey  of  community  college  facilities 
in  Ontario  and  that  no  more  should  be  built 
or  enlarged  until  our  present  facilities  are 
operating  at  capacity.  The  college  in  Kirk- 
land Lake  is  operating  at  about  50  per  cent 
capacity  and  the  situation  in  Timmins  isn't 
much  better.  I  see  constant  duplication  and 
outright  competition  with  taxpayers'  money 
between  the  colleges  in  Ontario  as  they  seek 
students.  It  would  make  more  sense  to  ofi^er 
increased  grants  to  southern  Ontario  students 
to  locate  in  the  north  rather  than  spend  more 
millions  in  expansion  in  the  south. 

I  am  well  aware  that  this  government  and 
the  Minister  of  Health  (Mr.  Miller)  are  con- 
cerned over  the  increasing  costs  of  medical 
services.  I  do  suggest  that  we  should  replace 
the  present  cumbersome  billing  procedures 
with  a  simple  credit  card.  After  all,  if  you 
can  get  four  new  tires  and  a  grease  job 
simply  by  presenting  a  credit  card,  I  see  no 
reason  why  medical  attention  should  require 
so  much  paper  work. 

ISince  transportation  has  been  one  of  the 
major  problems  of  the  north,  I  very  much 
welcome  the  recent  appointment  of  my  good 
friend  and  colleague,  John  Rhodbs  of  Sault 
Ste.  Marie,  as  Minister  of  Transportation 
and  Communications.    This  appointment— 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  Repeat  that. 

Mr.  Havrot:  Oh,  would  the  minister  like  a 
replay? 

tSince  transportation  hasi  been  one  of  the 
major  problems  of  the  north,  I  very  much 
welcome  the  recent  appointment  of  my  good 
friend  and  colleague,  John  Rhodes  of  Sault 
Ste.  Marie,  as  Minister  of  Transportation  and 
Communications . 


MARCH  7,  1974 


63 


Mr.  B.  Cilbertson  (Algoma):  Rhodes  for 
roads. 

Mr.  Havrot:  This  appointment  brings  the 
number  of  cabinet  ministers  to  three  from 
northeastern  and  northwestern  Ontario  and 
clearly  indicates  that  the  government  recog- 
nizes the  needs  and  priorities  of  the  north. 
I  might  also  add  that  this  is  the  first  time 
in  the  history  of  the  province  that  this 
important  portfolio  has  been  held  by  a 
northern  member. 

Hon.  Mr.   Winkler:   How  about  that? 

Mr.  Havrot:  The  government  unveiled  this 
past  year  a  series  of  important  steps  designed 
to  benefit  the  economy  of  northern  Ontario. 
A  10  per  cent  increase  in  general  support 
grants,  announced  in  the  budget  for  northern 
municipalities,  is  in  addition  to  grants  made 
to  all  other  Ontario  municipalities.  The  new 
business  incentive  programme  provides  for 
loans  to  new  or  expanding  northern  busi- 
nesses of  up  to  $1  million  or  90  per  cent  of 
capital  costs  and  may  be  interest-free.  Interim 
reductions  on  freight  rates  averaging  18  per 
cent  are  in  efi^ect  in  northeastern  Ontario. 
They  have  helped  to  reduce  costs  of  incom- 
ing goods  and  permit  outgoing  prodticts  to 
compete  more  effectively  in  southern  markets. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  delighted  by  the  recog- 
nition given  to  northern  Ontario  in  the 
Speech  from  the  Throne.  The  opportunity 
to  establish  local  community  councils  in  un- 
organized townships  in  northern  Ontario  is 


most  welcome.  Studies  to  establish  a  port 
facility  in  the  James  Bay  area  to  bring  poten- 
tial supplies  of  gas,  oil  and  minerals  from 
sources  in  the  eastern  Arctic  will  no  doubt 
stimulate  exploration  and  there  is  a  good 
possibility  that  this  area  could  well  become 
a  major  producer  of  natural  gas  for  Ontario. 

I  wholeheartedly  support  the  proposal  for 
a  prescription  drug  plan  for  senior  citizens. 
The  present  form  of  assistance  through  wel- 
fare agencies  is  totally  unacceptable. 

The  provincial  home  renewal  programme 
which  provides  grants  to  homeowners  in 
municipahties  for  preserving  and  upgrading 
the  quality  of  existing  homes  will  be  of  great 
benefit  to  the  people  of  the  north.  Over  the 
years,  many  homeowners  have  experienced 
difficulties  in  obtaining  loans  at  reasonable 
rates  to  improve  their  homes. 

I  look  forward  to  the  implementation  of 
these  and  other  recommendations  in  the 
fourth  session  of  the  29th  Parhament.  Thank 
you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

'Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  moves  the  adjournment 
of  the  debate. 

'Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler  moves  the  adjournment 
of  the  House. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjourned  at  3:50  o'clock, 
p.m. 


64  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


CONTENTS 

Thursday,  March  7,  1974 

Route  of  petroleum  pipeline,  statement  by  Mr.  Grossman  39 

Arbitration  board  for  CAAT  dispute,  question  of  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Laughren  40 

Anglo-Canadian    Pulp    and    Paper    expansion    in    northwestern    Ontario,    statement    by 

Mr.    Davis    42 

Anglo-Canadian    Pulp    and    Paper    expansion    in    northwestern    Ontario,    questions    of 

Mr.  Davis:   Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Lewis  43 

Environmental  impact  of  public  works,  questions  of  Mr.  Grossman  and  Mr.  McKeough: 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr,  Cassidy,  Mr.  Gaunt    43 

Prosecution    of   denturists,    questions   of   Mr.   Welch:    Mr.   R.   F.    Nixon,   Mr.    Shulman, 

Mr.  Braithwaite,  Mr.  Roy  47 

Route  of  petroleum  pipeline,  questions  of  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  Roy  49 

Maple  Mountain  development,  questions  of  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Lewis  50 

Hall  Lamp  Co.,  questions  of  Mr.  Guindon  and  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  Riddell  ....  50 

Acquisition  of  Lake  Ontario  Cement  Co.  property,  question  of  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Lewis  51 

Female  appointments  to  WCB,  question  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Lewis  51 

No-fault  automobile  insurance,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Singer,  Mr.  Roy  52 

Role  of  chiropractors,  questions  of  Mr.  Miller:   Mr.  Shulman  53 

GO-Urban  system,  questions  of  Mr.  Rhodes:   Mr.  Givens  54 

Spending  ceilings  in  education,  questions  of  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Deans,  Mr.  Lewis  55 

Assessments  on  mobile  homes,  questions  of  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Good  55 

Presenting  reports,  Ministry  of  Government  Services  and  Provincial  Auditor,  Mr.  Snow  55 

Presenting   report,    federal-provincial   agreement  for  regional   economic   development  in 

Cornwall  area,  Mr.  Irvine  55 

Practise  of  Dental  Prosthesis  Act,  bill  intituled,  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  first  reading  56 

Milk  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Stewart,  first  reading  56 

Developmental  Services  Act  1974,  bill  intituled,  Mr.  Brunelle,  first  reading  56 

Municipal  Act,  biU  to  amend,  Mr.  Irvine,  first  reading  56 

Ontario  Human  Rights  Code,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Guindon,  first  reading  56 

Mental  Health  Act,  bill  to  amend,  Mr.  Roy,  first  reading  56 

Debate  on  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  Mr.  Beckett,  Mr.  Havrot  57 

Motion  to  adjourn  debate,  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  agreed  to  63 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Winkler,  agreed  to  63 


No.  4 


Ontario 


Hcgtslature  of  Ontario 


OFFICIAL  REPORT  —  DAILY  EDITION 
Fourth  Session  of  the  Twenty-Ninth  Legislature 


Friday,  March  8,  1974 


Speaker:  Honourable  Allan  Edward  Renter 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARLIAMENT  BUILDINGS,  TORONTO 

1974 


Price  per  session,  $10.00.  Address,  Clerk  of  the  House,  Parliament  Bldgs.,  Toronto 


CONTENTS 


(Daily  index  of  proceedings  appears  at  back  of  this  issue.) 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  10  o'clock,  a.m. 

Prayers. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Statements  by  the  ministry. 

Oral  questions.  The  Leader  of  the  Opposi- 


tion. 


WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION  BOARD 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
Minister  of  Labour  if  he  contemplates  mak- 
ing further  changes  in  the  composition  and 
personnel  of  the  workmen's  Compensation 
Board  and  the  high  administrative  echelons 
of  the  board? 

Hon.  F.  Guindon  (Minister  of  Labour): 
Yes,  Mr.  Speaker.  There  are  still  two  va- 
cancies on  the  board.  Two  commissioners 
still  have  to  be  appointed. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Thank  you.  Can  the 
minister  assures  us  that  Mr.  Decker  will  be 
maintained  in  his  position  as— 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  He  was 
reappointed. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  —vice-chairman  and  that 
the  stories  and  the  rumours  that  are  heard 
among  those  concerned  with  the  Workmen's 
Compensation  Board  are  in  no  way  true,  and 
that,  in  fact,  he  will  continue  in  his  impor- 
tant post? 

Hon.  Mr.  Cuindon:  Mr.  Speaker,  Mr. 
Decker  has  been  reappointed  for  a  term  of 
two  years.  I  believe,  as  a  commissioner  of  the 
body  corporate  and  not  as  vice-chairman. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Not  as  vice-chairman? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Right. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary  then: 
Are  we  to  assume  that  he  will  be  removed 
from  that  position? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  There  are  two  vice- 
chairmen.  With  the  new  structure  of  the 
board,  as  members  know,  we  have  a  vice- 
chairman   for  manager,   Mr.   Speaker,   and   a 


FRroAY,  March  8,  1974 

vice-chairman   for  the   appeal   structure;   but 
Mr.  Decker  is  still  a  member  of  the  board. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  He  is  a  hear- 
ing officer. 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  is  a  commissioner  of  ap- 
peals. 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  No,  no.  He  is  a  mem- 
ber of  the  corporate  body. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I'm  sorry,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  don't  want  to  belabour  this,  but  his  posi- 
tion has  been  vice-chairman  now  for  a  con- 
siderable period  of  time  and  that  is  going  to 
be  changed.  Is  that  correct? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Yes,  that's  right,  Mr. 
Speaker,  Mr.  Decker  was  vice-chairman  of 
the  board.  Now  he  is  a  member  of  the  cor- 
porate body,  the  same  as  Mr.  Hamilton. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Right.  A  supplementary: 
Is  it  the  minister's  intention  to  deal  directly 
with  the  union  of  injured  workmen— a  group 
that  he  is  familiar  with,  as  are  we,  from 
various  communications— which  seems  to  be 
becoming  more  and  more  the  major  organ- 
ized spokesman  for  those  people  who  feel 
they  have  not  been  dealt  with  equitably  and 
with  justice  by  the  board? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  I  think  the  board  has 
always  had  a  fairly  good  rapport  with  the 
injured  workmen's  group,  Mr.  Speaker.  How- 
ever, in  the  new  structure  you  will  find  there 
will  be  counsellors  appointed  as  well,  coun- 
sellors who  will  not  come  under  the  board 
but  will  be  paid  by  the  Ministry  of  Labour. 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West):  Sup- 
plementary, Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Wind- 
sor West. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Thank  you.  Would  the 
minister  consider  appointing  various  persons 
or  the  directors  of  the  Injured  Workmen's 
Consultants  as  consultants  to  the  board,  as 
one  of  these  bodies  outside  the  board  which 
the  board  is  now  able  and  willing  to  appoint? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Right  now,  of  course, 
Mr.  Speaker,  the  board  is  accepting  applica- 


68 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


tions  from  anyone  interested  in  being  ap- 
pointed to  the  board.  These  applicants  will 
be  screened,  and  of  course  we  are  looking 
for  experienced  people  who  we  feel  really 
will  fill  that  job  properly. 

Coining  back  to  the  question  of  my  hon. 
friend  from  Windsor  West,  I  cannot  say  at 
this  time  whether  we  could  do  this  or  not. 
I  would  think  not. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Why  did  the  minister  turn  down  the  recent 
request  from  the  union  of  injured  workmen 
to  meet  with  a  large  number  of  their  mem- 
bership, so  that  they  could  raise  with  the 
Minister  of  Labour,  the  enormous  range  of 
injustice  they  continue  to  feel  about  their 
relationship  with  the  Workmen's  Compensa- 
tion Board?  Most  of  them,  as  the  minister 
knows,  represent  immigrant  communities  in 
the  west  end  of  the  city  of  Toronto,  and  he 
categorically  refuses  to  meet  with  them.  Why 
does  he  do  that  as  minister?  He  refused  to 
meet  their  mass  meeting.  He  said,  "Send 
some  representatives  to  my  oflRce."  Why 
won't  he  meet  with  the  range  of  injured 
workmen  themselves? 

Hon.  Mr.  Cuindon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
met  with  this  group  on  several  occasions— 
at  least  three  that  I  recall  in  my  offices  here 
at  Queen's  Park.  The  board  and  the  chair- 
man of  the  Workmen's  Compensation  Board 
have  met  with  them  on  several  occasions  as 
well.  These  people  naturally  want  to  talk 
about  benefits.  I  am  in  no  position  to  say 
anything  at  this  present  time.  I  certainly  have 
to  consult  the  employers'  and  employees' 
organizations  of  this  province  and  find  out 
the  cost  factor  of  any  benefit  that  perhaps 
could  be  added.  So  I  am  not  in  a  position  at 
this  time  to— 

Mr.  Deans:  Has  the  minister  not  done 
that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  I  am  prepared,  and  I 
said  so— 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  is  building  an- 
other host  of  rage  out  there. 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  I  have  never  turned 
down  any  delegation  in  the  last  2%  years, 
Mr.  Speaker.  I  would  be  quite  prepared  to 
meet  with  them,  but  there  is  no  point  in 
attending  a  public  assembly- 
Mr.  Lewis:  Why  not?  He  is  a  minister  of 
the  Crown.  There  is  tremendous  frustration 
amongst  those  workers.  He  should  meet  with 
them. 


Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  I  would  be  glad  to  meet 
with  them,  and  I  will— I  have  offered  to  meet 
with  them. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Sure,  three  or  four  selected 
ones  in  his  office. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Would 
the  minister  agree  that  the  very  best  kind 
of  a  political  realization  in  this  is  that  if  the 
responsible  minister,  not  the  appointed  chair- 
man, meet  with  this  group,  the  injured  work- 
men's union,  and  on  their  own  ground  and 
under  their  own  circumstances? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Sure,  sure. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Why  not?  Surely  that  is 
why  we  have  a  Legislature  and  a  responsible 
minister, 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  it 
is  known,  even  among  the  injured  workmen's 
association,  that  it  is  not  hard  to  meet  the 
Minister  of  Labour  in  this  province.  I  think 
I  made  this  very  clear. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  he  refused. 

Hon.  Mr.  Guindon:  Moreover,  when  our 
bill,  the  Workmen's  Compensation  Act,  went 
to  the  committee  stage  last  year,  we  made  it 
a  point  to  invite  these  people  to  attend;  and 
in  fact  they  did  contribute  something. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  gave  them  24 
hours'  notice.  He  invited  them  on  Friday 
for  a  Monday. 


CAMP  ASSOCIATES  ADVERTISING  LTD. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  What  happened  to  the 
Minister  of  the  Environment  (Mr.  W.  New- 
man)? Oh,  there  he  goes. 

I  would  like  to  ask  the  Minister  of  Indus- 
try and  Tourism  to  repeat  his  rather  con- 
voluted explanation  as  to  why  he,  through 
his  ministry,  has  made  pavTuents  of  $1,- 
250,000  to  Dalton  Camp  Associates  without 
a  contract  or  a  written  agreement.  Does  the 
minister  not  feel  that  it  is  his  personal  re- 
sponsibility to  see  that  these  moneys  are 
spent  in  a  more  orderly  way,  if  at  all?  Does 
he  not  further  see  the  sensitivity  in  this 
matter,  since  a  number  of  advertising  agen- 
cies seem  to  be  getting  bigger  and  bigger 
accounts  with  various  government  ministries 
as  we  get  closer  to  the  election,  and  the 
government  embarks  on  these  self-aggran- 
dizement programmes  at  the  public  expense? 

Hon.  C.  Bennett  (Minister  of  Industry  and 
Tourism):  Mr.  Speaker,  the  remark  made  by 


MARCH  8,  1974 


the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  is  not  actually 
correct.  First  of  all,  the  sum  of  $1.25  million 
was  not  paid  to  the  Camp  agency.  That  was 
our  entire  account  for  advertising  in  press, 
radio  and  TV  for  the  ministry  for  the  year 
that  the  auditor  was  reporting  for.  Camp 
Associates,  sir,  works  on  a  commitment  to 
the  government  through  the  Ministry  of  In- 
dustry and  Tourism.  When  the  auditor 
brought  it  to  our  attention  that  there  should 
be  an  agreement,  the  ministry  people  set  to 
work  to  draft  an  agreement.  After  many 
months  of  discussion  within  the  ministry  and 
with  the  auditor's  people  they  were  not  sure 
as  to  why  exactly  they  were  trying  to  pro- 
pose or  arrange  an  agreement,  which  is  not 
the  customary  way  of  dealing  with  advertis- 
ing agencies  anywhere  in  this  province. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  customary  way  is  to 
do  it  on  a  friendly  and  political  basis. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Well,  I  suppose  if  it  is 
on  a  friendly  and  political  basis  we'd  likely 
gain  that  line  of  knowledge  from  the  Liberal 
Party  in  Ottawa— and  so,  Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  It  has 
worked  for  30  years. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  I  am  reporting  exactly 
as  the  situation  happens  to  be  with  advertis- 
ing agencies  in  this  province- 
Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  Both 
the  Conservatives  and  Liberals  do  it  the 
same  way;  we  recognize  that. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  We  know  who  are  the 
ripoff  artists. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  —and  let  me  remind 
the  NDP  that  it  is  on  the  same  basis  as  the 
NDP  is  treating  its  advertising  agency  in 
Manitoba;  the  agency  that  looked  after  the 
party  in  power  in  Manitoba  during  the  last 
provincial  election  in  that  province. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  We  will 
check  that  one,  too. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  W.  A.  Stewart  (Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food):  Righteous  indignation. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Let's  get  back  to  Ontario 


Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  order. 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 


Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  have 
with  our  agents— and  I  can  report  that  for 
the  Ministry  of  Industry  and  Tourism  we  have 
three  agencies  that  work  on  our  behalf- 
commitments  which  have  a  30-djay  cancella- 
tion clause.  In  the  commitment  it  very  clearly 
states  exactly  what  we  expect  of  that  agent 
for  us  as  the  client. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Let's  table  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  We  place  the  advertise- 
ment in  the  areas  that  we  believe  it  should 
be  placed  for  the  greatest  efficiency  and  pro- 
motion for  the  Province  of  Ontario.  TTieir 
commissions- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  And  for  the  Conservative 
Party. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  If  it  happens  to  advance 
the  cause  of  the  government  of  the  Province 
of  Ontario,  all  well  and  good.  But  first  and 
foremost  we  are  advancing  the  position  of 
the  Province  of  Ontario,  which  I  believe  in- 
cludes the  opposition  members  as  well. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Does  he  mean  the  Con- 
servative Party? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Can  we  share  the  de- 
cisions on  how  the  minister  handles  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  We  have  at  the  moment 
the  Camp  agency,  which  looks  after  the 
tourism  account,  and  in  our  opinion  it  is 
doing  a  very  effective  and  efficient  job.  The 
travel  agency  for  Canada,  through  the  Liberal 
Party,  adlnits  that  our  advertising  is  among 
the  best  on  this  continent. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  An  absolute  disgrace. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Witii  that,  sir,  it  is 
obvious  that  this  government  has  employed 
the  best  agency  possible  to  advance  the  cause 
of  tourism  in  this  province. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Does  the 
minister  then  reject  the  criticism  from  the 
Provincial  Auditor?  In  fact,  is  he  saying  that 
what  he  is  doing  is  better  than  what  the 
Provincial  Auditor  is  suggesting  and  saying 
specifically  should  be  done? 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  That's  right. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  since  the 
time  that  we  discussed  the— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  Chairman  of  the 
Management  Board  says  "right." 


70 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Lewis:  Get  that  on  the  record. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Let  me  assure  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition,  since  the  day  that— 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Great  management  over 
there, 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Yes,  we  have  good 
management  and  we  have  followed  the  advice 
of  the  auditor  at  this  point  in  time. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Oh  come  on— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  It  is  already  too  much. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  man  the  minister  is  deal- 
ing with  is  also  the  chairman  of  the  commis- 
sion on  the  Legislature. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  would 
be  well  if  the  leader  of  the  NDP  would  get 
his  facts  straight  for  a  change,  for  the  simple 
reason  that  Mr.  Camp  is  not  associated  with 
the  firm. 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  It  is  his 
brother-in-law. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  I  couldn't  care  less  who 
he  is.  The  fact  is  that— 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Just  tell  us  the  minister  will 
put  it  in  hand. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  The  statement  was  made 
that  Mr.  Camp  was  leading  the  agency. 


ca 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That  agency  has  such  a 
tchy  name— Dalton  Camp  Associates. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Well,  it  appears  that  the 
Liberal  Party  was  willing  to  accept  some  of 
his  recommendations  on  changes  in  the  Legis- 
lature, so  I  would  think  that  his  advice  must 
be  good  herei  as  well  as  in  the  advertising 
field. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Sort  this  out  then. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  May  I  say  that  the 
leader  of  the  Liberal  Party  asked  if  we  were 
willing  to  accept  the  auditor's  advice.  We  are; 
we  have  prepared  an  agreement. 

Mr.  Singer:  Oh,  the  minister  and  the  Chair- 
man of  the  Management  Board  don't  agree 
on  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  May  I  advise  the  Leader 
of  the   Opposition  that  since  that  time  we 


have  had  further  discussions  with  the  auditor 
general  for  the  province  and  we  are  not  sure 
that  there  is  anything  to  be  gained  by  sign- 
ing an  agreement.  I  would  advise  the  House 
of  this,  that  we  have  an  agreement  which  has 
been  signed  by  the  Camp  agency.  It  has  not 
been  signed  by  the  ministry  at  this  point  be- 
cause there  seems  to  be  some  difference  of 
opinion  with  the  auditor  as  to  why  we  should 
have  the  agreement  when  the  commitment  is 
covering  the  item  fully  and  adequately  at  this 
time. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Because  the  Chairman  of 
the  Management  Board  was  opposed  to  it. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
No.  1,  will  the  minister  table  those  commit- 
ments in  the  House?  No.  2,  will  he  explain 
what  he  means  by  the  customary  relationship? 
And  No.  3,  can  he  tell  us  whether  or  not  the 
Management  Board  will  accept  the  auditor's 
recommendations  since  the  Chairman  of  the 
Management  Board  has  already  rejected  them 
this  morning  in  the  House? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  That's  not  true. 

Mr.  Singer:  The  Chairman  of  the  Manage- 
ment Board  had  better  get  up  and  set  that 
straight. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Well,  as  far  as  the  Man- 
agement Board's  position  is  concerned  I'll 
allow  the  Chairman  of  the  Management  Board 
to  report  on  that  question  for  the  member. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That's  nice  of  the  minister. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  As  for  the  commitments, 
sir,  we  are  prepared  to  file  them.  They  are 
an  order  from  our  ministry  to  the  agency  as 
to  where  we  wish  our  advertising  placed.  We 
have  no  reasons  not  to  indicate  very  clearly 
to  this  House  and  the  people  of  Ontario 
where  we  spend  the  money  in  their  interests 
to  promote  tourism. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  And  the  government's 
own. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Downs- 
view. 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  by  way  of  supple- 
mentary, could  the  minister  tell  us  how  many 
dollars  he  expects  to  spend  with  the  Camp 
agency,  without  the  agreement,  during  the 
months  of  March,  April,  May  and  June  of 
1974?  Has  he  projected  his  thinking  that  far 
ahead  or  is  he  just  writing  a  blank  cheque? 


MARCH  8,  1974 


71 


How  many  dollars  has  he  allocated  and  what 
plans  does  he  have? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Just  whatever  is  good  for 
the  Tory  party. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Let  me  say,  Mr.  Speaker, 
while  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  seems  to 
think  that  it  is  all  for  the  advancement  of  the 
Tory  party- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Isn't  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  —it  has  provided  ex- 
cellent government  for  this  province  over  the 
last  30  years.  Obviously  we  have  placed  the 
ads  in  the  right  spots  to  convince  people  we 
are  doing  a  job  on  their  behalf  and  in  their 
interests. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  It  is  time  for  the  cam- 
paign. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  won't  save  the  government 
anyway,  but  that's  not  the  point  of  the 
question. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  As  to  answering  the 
question,  we  do  have  spelled  out  very  clearly 
in  our  commitments  to  the  agency  exacdy  the 
number  of  dollars  that  will  be  spent  and  in 
the  places  that  they  will  be  spent,  whether 
it  relates  to  television,  radio  or  newspaper 
advertising. 

Mr.  Singef!  How  about  telling  the  House 
about  it? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Did  the  minister  say  he 
would  table  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  If  Liberal  members  had 
been  listening  to  the  leader  of  the  NDP— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Did  the  minister  say  he 
would  table  it? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  I  believe,  Mr,  Speaker, 
if  a  few  of  the  members  of  the  Liberal  Party 
would  sit  and  listen  for  a  moment  to  the 
questions  that  are  asked  by  other  parties  in 
this  House,  they  might  also  be  able  to  gain 
some  knowledge  of  the  answers  that  are  given. 

I  indicated  to  the  leader  of  the  NDP  that 
I  was  prepared  to  table  in  this  House  the 
commitments  that  we  have  with  our  agency 
in  placing  advertising  on  a  national  or  inter- 
national basis,  and  that  would  cover  the 
very  question  that  the  member  from  the 
Liberal  Party  has  asked. 

Mr.  Singer:  When  is  the  minister  going  to 
table  it? 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  When  is  he  going  to 
table  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  In  due  course. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Apart  from  self-enhancement 
or  whatever  else,  I  don't  think  it's  comic  in 
terms  of  the  commission  on  the  Legislature. 
Does  the  minister  not  think  he  owes  it  to 
Dalton  Camp  Associates  as  well  as  to  the 
Legislature  to  table  those  commitments  on 
Monday  or  Tuesday  of  next  week  to  indi- 
cate to  us  when  in  time  those  commitments 
were  undertaken  and  whether  or  not  he  is 
going  to  follow  the  specific  recommendation 
of  the  auditor  to  have  a  negotiated  agree- 
ment or  contract? 

Hon.  Mr.  Beimett:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  I 
have  already  covered  the  position  in  the 
contract.  We  have  an  agreement  already 
drafted  and  signed  by  the  Camp  agency,  but 
because  there  appears  to  be  some  difiFerence 
of  opinion  as  to  what  the  need  of  the  agree- 
ment is  at  this  time  it  has  not  been  fully 
signed  by  the  ministry. 

Mr,  Lewis;  Let  us  see  it. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Well,  if  the  ministry 
doesn't  need  it,  why  have  it? 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  by  way  of  sup- 
plementary, if  the  minister  doesn't  know  the 
need,  if  there  is  confusion,  how  can  he  pos- 
sibly say  that  he  has  a  plan  for  the  ongoing 
months? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  he  can  say  many  things. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
sure  that  the  relationship  of  the  agreement 
has  anything  to  do  with  the  placing  of  ad- 
vertising, to  be  very  honest  with  you. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  wouldn't  have  thought  so, 
either. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  I  already  indicated  to 
this  House  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  auditors 
and  those  people  within  the  ministry,  the 
commitment  that  we  have  with  the  agency 
is  basically  the  same  thing,  a  direct  commit- 
ment as  to  what  we  are  going  to  spend  in 
advertising  and  in  what  months  and  in  what 
areas  of  promotion  we  are  going  to  use  it. 

Mr.  Singer:  Why  doesn't  the  minister  tell 
the  House  about  it? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Leader  of  the 
Opposition?  The  hon.  member  for  Scarbor- 
ough West. 


72 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Lewis:  We  will  allow  Camp  Associates 
to  tender  on  our  contract. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough West  with  a  question. 


Hon.  W.  Newman:  No,  I  haven't  visited 
that  site.  I  have  visited  many  garbage  sites, 
though,  in  the  province. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Is  he  going  to  visit  this 


ENVIRONMENTAL  HEARING  BOARD 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  have  a  question,  Mr.  Speaker, 
of  the  Minister  of  the  Environment  because 
he  has  been  so  anxious  to  jump  in  these  last 
few  days.  May  I  ask  him  whether  he  has 
rejected  the  request  from  Disposal  Services 
Ltd.  for  what  would  amount  to  a  hearing 
under  section  35  of  the  Environmental  Pro- 
tection Act,  which  would  allow  the  bylaw 
to  be  waived  so  that  Disposal  Services  could 
continue  to  establish  large  landfill  sites  in 
Vaughan  township? 

Hon.  W.  Newman  (Minister  of  the  En- 
vironment): Mr.  Speaker,  there  will  be  an 
Environmental  Hearing  Board  meeting  next 
week  on  these  matters,  on  the  20-acre  site 
and  the  bylaw. 

Mr.  Lewis:  On  the  20-acre  site  and  on 
the  big  proposed  site— the  900-acre  site— as 
well? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  No,  just  on  this  portion 
of  it.  We  are  still  waiting  for  engineering 
reports  on  the  total  overall  picture. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  I  won- 
der if  the  minister  could  tell  us  the  status  of 
that  other  great  garbage  commitment  that  his 
Environmental  Hearing  Board  has  made  and 
that  is  in  Hope  township.  Is  he  prepared  to 
say  what  the  government  policy  is  on  going 
forward  with  that  or  cancelling  it?  Hopefully 
it  will  cancel  it? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  As  you  know,  the  en- 
vironmental hearing  board  has  made  its  re- 
port- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  They  made  a  recommen- 
dation. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  They  made  a  recom- 
mendation. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That  the  CPR  be  granted 
the  right. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  Right.  And  we  are  now 

doing  the  necessary  testing  in  that  area. 
There  are  still  more  meetings  to  be  held 
with  the  CPR  officials  and  the  municipal  oflB- 
cials. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  Has 
the  minister  visited  the  site? 


Hon.  W.  Newman:  I  will  be  visiting  a  lot 
of  them. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  He  has  been  to  a  lot  of 
Tory  rallies  in  the  past. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Supplementary  to  the  minister, 
Mr.  Speaker:  Would  the  minister  consider 
suspending  the  intended  plans  for  the  Hope 
township  site,  for  the  Pickering  township 
site  and  for  the  Vaughan  township  site,  both 
in  the  transportation  of  public  and  private 
garbage?  And  would  he  take  a  look  at  the 
possibilities  of  alternatives  for  Metropolitan 
Toronto,  with  assistance  from  the  public 
treasury,  in  the  three-  or  four-year  interim 
period  before  major  recycling  and  reclama- 
tion can  be  undertaken,  to  locate  that  gar- 
bage in  an  area  of  the  province,  transported 
by  rail  if  necessary,  which  would  not  cause 
such  total  disruption  in  those  surrounding 
communities  immediately  adjacent  to  Metro? 
He  has  that  authority  under  the  Environ- 
mental Protection  Act. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  The  total  matter  of 
waste  disposal,  of  course,  I'm  very  much  con- 
cerned about  and  live  with  daily,  but  I'm 
not  prepared  at  this  point  in  time  to  with- 
draw all  these  applications,  no.  But  we  are 
certainly  looking. 

As  you  know,  we  have  the  programme 
Watts  from  Waste.  We  are  also  working  on 
the  engineering  for  a  reclamation  plant.  We 
are  looking  for  other  means.  Certainly  in  the 
long-range  view  we  want  to  do  away  with 
the  sites,  but  even  with  all  those  processes 
there  still  will  be  some  waste  that  will  have 
to  be  dealt  with  in  the  future. 

Mr.  E.  R.  Good  (Waterloo  North):  A  sup- 
plementary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Water- 
loo North. 

Mr.  Good:  Would  the  minister  assure  the 
Legislature  that  he  will  give  only  enough 
permits  to  handle  the  Metropolitan  landfill 
problem  until  such  time  as  there  is  a  speed-up 
in  the  reclamation  and  recycling  process 
within  Metro— which  is  five  years  late,  in- 
cidentally, Mr.  Speaker— so  that  there  won't 
be  permits  given,  which  could  carry  on  for 
20    years    more,    for    burying    our    garbage 


MARCH  8,  1974 


73 


in  the  ground,  which  is  what  they  are  wanting 
to  do? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  We  are  quite  anxious 
in  this  ministry  to  get  away  from  long-term 
landfill  sites. 

Mr.  Good:  When  did  it  change  its  policy? 
Overnight?  Because  that  was  not  the  previous 
policy. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  No,  I  didn't  say  it  was— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  New  minister,  new  policy, 
that's  all. 

Mr.  Good:  That's  great. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  There  are  many  sites— 
and  I  realize  what  the  member  is  trying  to 
say,  that  we  want  to  look  at  the  other  pro- 
grammes we  have  under  way  to  try  to  find 
other  ways   of  dealing  with  this  matter. 

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  A  sup- 
plementary. 

Mr.  Good:  The  minister  didn't  answer  my 
question. 

Mr.  Deacon:  In  view  of  the  fact  that  there 
are  at  least  a  score  of  well-proven  recycling 
installations  now  in  operation  in  Europe  and 
in  North  America,  could  the  minister  not 
select  one  of  these  at  least  and  get  several  of 
them  immediately  under  construction,  because 
it  takes  two  years  at  the  most  to  get  proven 
plans  into  construction  and  in  operation  if  they 
are  proven  processes?  Would  the  minister 
undertake  to  do  that  and  keep  the  limit  on 
any  landfill  to  three  years,  other  than  the 
refuse  left  over  after  recycling? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  I  must  be  quite  honest. 
I  am  not  that  familiar  with  all  the  European 
situations  at  this  point  in  time.  As  I  said,  we 
have  engineering  plans  under  way  for  reckma- 
tion  plants  now  and— 

Mr.  Deacon:  This  is  terrible. 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  At  this  point  in  time 
I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that  we  can  lock  into 
a  three-year  situation  until  we  have  these 
plans  well  along. 

Mr.  B.  Newman  ( Windsor- Walkerville): 
Why  doesn't  the  minister  take  my  bill- 
Mr.  Renwick:  Mr.  Speaker,  by  way  of  a 
supplementary  question,  has  the  hon.  Minister 
of  Industry  and  Tourism  reported  to  the 
hon.  Minister  of  the  Environment  about  the 
discussions  which  he  has  been  having  with  a 
firm  from  Italy  on  this  question  of  garbage 


disposal  and  the  mechanical  equipment  which, 
I  understand,  was  quite  acceptable  to  the 
Ministry  of  Industry  and  Tourism? 

Hon.  W.  Newman:  As  a  matter  of  fact  I 
have  been  rather  busy  since  I  started  this  job. 
I  haven't  really  had  a  chance  to  talk  to  the 
Ministry  of  Industry  and  Tourism,  though  I 
plan  to  be  meeting  with  them— I  believe  it's 
on  Monday  of  this  coming  week. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  hasn't  talked  to 
him  yet? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough West. 


FOOD  PRICES 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  question,  Mr.  Speaker— I  have 
been  looking  for  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations.  I  can't  find  him,  but 
I  see  a  facsimile  over  there  so  perhaps  I 
could  direct  the  question. 

Mr.  Good:  Frankie  Laine's  over  there. 

Mr.  Lewis:  What  is  the  minister  doing 
about  his  continued  appraisal  of  supermarkets 
and  retailers  in  his  effort  to  watch  the  rise  of 
food  prices?  Has  he  referred  any  other  dis- 
crepancies or  injustices  that  he  thinks  may 
have  occurred  to  the  federal  food  prices  com- 
mission, and  what  has  happened  to  that  legis- 
lation which  was  hinted  at  in  the  last  ses- 
sion, but  not  noted  in  this  Throne  Speech, 
which  might  give  the  consumers  some  protec- 
tion from  increasing  food  prices  other  than  in 
the  area  of  warranties  and  franchises,  etc.? 

Hon.  J.  T.  Clement  (Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations):  Mr.  Speaker, 
firstly  I  would  like  to  thank  the  leader  of  the 
New  Democratic  Party  for  recognizing  that  I 
was  here.  I  have  been  here  two  or  three  days 
and  I  am  surprised  he  didn't  see  me. 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  he  hasn't  been  here;  not 
in  his  seat  he  hasn't. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  also  welcome  the 
comments  referring  to  my  Christmas  present 
and  I  have  a  new  shirt  on"  today,  too.  I  hope 
the  fact  that  it's  a  little  on  the  red  side  has 
nothing  to  do  vsdth  my  new  motif. 

In  any  event,  sir,  referring  to  the  question 
dealing  with  the  food  prices,  yes,  we  are 
continuing  to  monitor  diem.  We  are  also 
drafting  the  Business  Practices  Act  to  which 
I  have  made  reference  in  the  past.  I  hope  to 
be  able  to  introduce  that  legislation  in  this 
session  of  the  House. 


74 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


I  have  also  had  discussions  with  my 
counterpart  in  Ottawa,  the  Hon.  Mr.  Gray, 
insofar  as  food  price  increases  are  concerned. 
As  the  hon.  leadter  knows,  it  is  not  only  re- 
stricted to  this  province;  the  problem  seems 
to  exist,  in  fact,  across  the  country  and  I 
anticipate  that  legislation  will  emanate  from 
the  federal  people  dealing  with  this  particular 
matter, 

I  am  sure  the  hon.  leader  is  aware  that  a 
substantial  number  of  prosecutions,  I  am  ad- 
vised, have  already  been  initiated  by  the 
federal  people  as  a  result  of  the  Prices  Review 
Board's  investigations  into  food  prices,  which 
have  been  carried  on  over  the  past  few 
months.  Insofar  as  our  proposing  or  under- 
taking some  form  of  price  control  is  con- 
cerned, I  see  that  just  cannot  be  effected  and 
I  would  not,  accordingly,  make  any  such 
undertaking  to  the  members  of  this  House. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary:  Can  the  min- 
ister make  public  the  monitoring  of  food 
price  increases  that  he  has  in  his  ministry  to 
give  us  a  sense  of  where  precisely  it  is 
occurring  and  who  is  responsible  for  it? 
Second,  has  he  called  the  major  supermarket 
chains  into  his  office  to  justify  to  klm  or  ex- 
plain to  him  how  they  legitimize  the  return 
on  investment  which  they  have  made  over  the 
last  18  months  to  two  years,  and  to  take  a 
look  at  their  balance  sheets? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  no,  I 
have  not  called  the  presidents  of  the  super- 
markets into  my  office  to  make  that  inquiry. 
We  have  taken  a  careful  look  at  those 
publicly  listed  companies  out  of  a  matter  of 
curiosity  on  our  part.  It  is  interesting,  Mr. 
Speaker,  in  connection  with  one  major  super- 
market that  while  at  first  blush  it  did  have  a 
particularly  lucrative  year  in  1973,  it  appears 
that  a  substantial  portion  of  earnings  in  that 
particular  year  for  that  particular  company 
emanated  from  the  sale  of  capital  assets  by 
way  of  land,  and  it  appears  a  capital  gain  of 
some  substance  was  realized. 

We  have  no  jurisdiction  to  invite  them  in. 
I  am  sure  that  if  we  did,  they  would  come  in 
and  discuss  it. 

Insofar  as  the  food  monitoring  is  concerned, 
I  propose  to  make  those  figures  available  to 
the  public,  again  in  the  next  week  or  two.  I 
should  point  out  to  the  House,  Mr.  Speaker, 
and  to  the  hon.  leader  of  the  New  Democratic 
Party,  they  are  not  particularly  persuasive  one 
way  or  the  other  in  that  the  prices  will 
fluctuate  ever  so  slightly  from  week  to  week. 
There  are  no  significant  trends  or  leadership 
provided   by   any   one   company   in   any  one 


particular  period  of  time  and  the  difference 
in  terms  of  dollars  and  cents  in  rather 
minimal. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  minister  is  being  manip- 
ulated and  ripped  off  and  he  is  enjoying  it. 
He  likes  watching  this  system  work. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  A  supplementary  ques- 
tion, Mr.  Speaker:  May  I  ask  the  minister 
what  co-ordination,  if  any,  there  is  between 
this  work  in  his  ministry  and  the  work  within 
the  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Food  where 
it  monitors  a  food  basket?  Why  is  it  that  both 
this  ministry  and  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture, 
in  reference  to  the  food  basket  monitoring, 
operate  so  secretly?  Why  isn't  this  informa- 
tion out  to  the  public  so  that  it  may  be  of 
some  value? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  have 
indicated,  I  will  make  that  available.  There 
is  nothing  secretive  about  it  but  I  don't  think 
the  hon.  member  for  York  South  will  really 
be  turned  on  if  he  notices  that  at  supermarket 
X  our  food'  basket  cost  $19.26  and  at  its 
competitor  it  was  $19.31  for  the  week.  I  don't 
think  that  will'  do  anything  for  him. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Let  the  minister  ask  himself 
what  that  means. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  There's  nothing  secre- 
tive about  it.  We  have  worked  closely  with 
the  Ministry  of  Agriculture,  particularly  the 
food  council  which  also  does'  the  monitoring. 
We  are  trying  to  ascertain  at  all  times,  in  our 
role,  whetiier  any  legislation  of  this  province 
is  being  breached  by  any  of  the  supermarkets. 
The  member  and  I  can  sit  here  and  talk  all 
day  about  the  spiralling  costs  and  that  sort  of 
thing,  but  I  ask  him  exactly  under  what  legis- 
lation we  would  move? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Unless  we  see  that 
existing  legislation  is  being  breached  there 
is  nothing  we  can  do  at  the  provincial  level. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  We  have  had  discus- 
sions with  the  Food  Prices  Review  Board 
people  on  noticing  practices  that  we  don't 
think  are  in  the  best  interests  of  consumers; 
and  they  have  shared  that  concern  and  in 
fact  have  initiated  certain  prosecutions  under 
the  Combines  Investigation  Act. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  prices  are  totally  provin- 
cial. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  A  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:    Is    the    minister    familiar    with    re- 


MARCH  8,  1974 


75 


search  paper  No.  14,  prepared  for  the  farm 
income  committee  by  William  Janssen  et  al, 
in  which  he,  Janssen,  documents  that  this 
manipulation  of  prices  by  supermarkets  is 
part  of  their  regular  game?  It  is  part  of  the 
pattern  of  operation;  and  if  they  are  fooling 
the  minister  and  he  can't  do  anything  about 
it,  doesn't  that  underline  the  need  for  legis- 
lation that  will  catch  these  procedures? 

Mr.  Lewis:  An  excess  profits  tax;  the  right 
to  roll  back  prices. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  have  not  seen  it. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  have  one  more  supplemen- 
tary. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  minister  ought  to 
read  that  report;  it  is  a  very  good  document. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  He  will  be  able  to  im- 
plement that  in  Manitoba  because  he  is  now 
the  deputy. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  He  is  indeed. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  But  he  hasn't  done  a 
thing  about  it. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  He  has,  you  bet  he  has. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart:  He  hasn't  done  a  thing 
about  it;  not  a  thing. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  They  know  about  their 
food  basket;  there  are  weekly  announcements 
about  the  discrepancies  between  what  far- 
mers get  and  consumer  prices. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  order. 

Mr.  Deans:  Thank  you.  Mr.  Speaker,  is  the 
minister  satisfied  there  is  in  fact  no  collusion 
between  the  supermarkets  in  order  to  make 
sure  that  the  average  food  basket  does  main- 
tain a  level  which  they  consider  to  be  reason- 
able but  I  consider  to  be  exhorbitant? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Sure  there  is  collusion;  there  is 
collusion. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  can't  speak  to  any 
such  discussion  as  it  exists,  in  reality  or  as 
alleged,  between  the  supermarkets.  I  point 
out  to  the  hon.  member  that  under  the  com- 
bines Investigation  Act  if  that  type  of  prac- 
tice persists  there  might  well  be  prosecution 
emanating  from  that  level. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well  then,  the  minister  should 
examine  it. 

Hon.    Mr.    Clement:    So   I'm  not  privy   to 


any  discussions  between  the  heads  of  super- 
markets, no. 

Mr.  Deans:  One  final  question. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon  member  for  Kit- 
chener. There  have  been  three  supplemen- 
taries.  Was  it  a  supplementary? 

Mr.  Breithaupt:   No,  it  wasn't. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I'm  sorry.  Then  the  hon. 
member  for  Wentworth  may  ask  a  supple- 
mentary. 

Mr.  Deans:  One  final  supplementary  ques- 
tion: Is  the  minister  aware  of  the  statement 
by  certain  supermarkets  that  they  do  indeed 
check  their  competitors'  prices  before  estab- 
lishing a  price  on  their  own  shelves  for 
similar  products? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  yes  I'm 
aware  of  that  statement  having  been  made. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough West.  Does  he  have  a  further  ques- 
tion? 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  I  don't  think  so. 

Mr.  Speaker:  No.  The  hon.  member  for 
Kitchener. 


PUBLIC  SERVICE  ACT  CONFLICT 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  I  have  a  question,  Mr. 
Speaker,  of  the  Chairman  of  the  Management 
Board  of  Cabinet.  As  it  would  appear  that  in 
1971-1972,  Dr.  Douglas  Wright  received 
some  $39,863  as  chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  University  Affairs,  can  the  Chairman  look 
into  section  33  of  the  Public  Service  Act  and 
advise  us  if  the  additional  payments  of 
$34,980  per  diem  for  work  on  the  Commis- 
sion on  Post-Secondary  Education,  and 
$23,935  in  expense  moneys  received  as  well 
by  Dr.  Wright,  do  not  perhaps  come  into 
conflict  with  the  requirement  for  a  public 
servant  not  to  engage  in  any  work  or  business 
undertaking  other  than  that  for  which  he  is 
paid  as  a  public  servant? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  cer- 
tainly have  a  look  at  the  question  the  hon. 
member  raises.  I'm  satisfied  at  the  moment 
that  it  met  criteria,  but  I'll  have  it  examined 
and  reply. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Perhaps  the  minister  on 
the  same  point  could  inquire  as  to  benefits 
likely  to  have  been  received  for  consulting 
work  done  on  the  structural  steel  contract  at 
Ontario  Place. 


76 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  All  right. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Who  was  the  commissioner 
who  received  27  per  cent  of  the  per  diems 
and  47  per  cent  of  the  expense  allowance 
indicated  in  the  auditor's  report;  the  com- 
missioner on  the  Post-Secondary  Education 
Commission?  That  was  it,  was  it  not? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  I'm  not  aware  of  the 
detail  the  hon.  member  is  inquiring  about 
but  I  shall  find  out  and  reply  to  him. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Sud- 
bury. 


EFFECT  OF  FREIGHT  RATE  CUT 

Mr.  M.  C.  Germa  (Sudbury):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  have  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications.  As  it  is  not 
apparent  that  any  benefits  have  accrued  to  the 
consumer  as  a  result  of  the  freight  rate 
reduction  programme  into  northern  Ontario, 
can  the  minister  cite  any  one  specific  con- 
sumer item  which  has  had  a  price  reduction 
on  account  of  the  freight  rate  reduction  pro- 
gramme by  the  Northern  Transportation  Com- 
mission? 

Hon.  J.  R.  Rhodes  (Minister  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications):  No,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  can't  cite  any  specific  commodity, 
but  I  can  say  that  there  will  be  a  new 
announcement  very  shortly.  As  you  know, 
there  was  an  experiment  in  this  area.  It  did 
not  perhaps  come  forward  as  we  had  hoped 
it  would.  It  has  been  reassessed  in  connection 
with  a  group  of  citizens  in  the  northeastern 
part  of  the  province,  and  a  new  programme 
will  be  brought  forth  very  shortly.  But  I 
can't  mention  any  specific  commodity  at  this 
time. 

Mr.  Germa:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Could  the  minister  also  give  us  the  details  of 
the  total  revenue  loss  to  the  Ontario  North- 
land Transportation  Commission  on  account  of 
the  programme  and  tell  us  who  is  the  great- 
est  benefactor  of  these  lost  revenues? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  at- 
tempt to  get  that  information  for  the  hon. 
member. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Downs- 
view  is  next. 


COMMUNICATIONS-6  INC. 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Natural  Resources. 
Could  he  explain  to  us  the  basis  on  which 
payments  in  the  amount  of  $59,578  were 
made  to  a  firm  of  consultants  and  writers  on 
public  relations  to  manage  the  information 
and  public  relations  programmes  for  his- 
torical parks  in  that  year?  This  was  done 
without  the  prior  approval  of  the  deputy 
minister  of  the  department;  and  there  were 
apparently  payments  made  to  a  firm  called 
Communications-6  Inc.  Who  were  they, 
who  found  them  and  on  whose  authority  was 
this  expenditure  made? 

Hon.  L.  Bemier  (Minister  of  Natural  Re- 
sources): Mr.  Speaker,  this  information,  as 
the  member  is  very  much  aware,  just  came 
to  my  attention  late  yesterday  afternoon.  I 
have  asked  the  deputy  for  a  full  report,  and 
I  will  have  that  for  the  member  just  as 
quickly  as  I  can.  I  might  say  that  this  par- 
ticular contract  has  come  to  an  end,  and  we 
have  called  tenders  for  a  new  public  re- 
lations  officer   for   the   Huronia   area. 

Mr.  Singer:  By  way  of  supplementary, 
could  the  minister  shed  a  little  light  on  who 
Communications-6  Inc.  is? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  No,  I  can't,  Mr.  Speak- 
er, but  I  will  get  the  information. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 


PREVENTIVE  MEDICINE 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park):  A  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Health,  Mr.  Speaker:  Can 
the  minister  explain  why  his  department  has 
lost  its  interest  in  preventive  medicine?  Spe- 
cifically, if  you  will  recall,  some  time  ago 
the  department  announced  with  great  fan- 
fare that  OHIP  was  going  to  pay  for  well- 
female  examinations  every  six  months.  A  big 
press  release  was  issued,  and  yet  very  quiet- 
ly the  department  has  issued  a  notice  to 
all  physicians  saying  it  no  longer  will  pay 
for  this  type  of  preventive  medicine.  Are 
they  no  longer  interested  in  the  department 
in  the  prevention  of  cancer? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller  (Minister  of  Health): 
Mr.  Speaker,  no  matter  what  crib  notes  I 
get,  each  day  he  asks  another  question  that 
is  not  on  them. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  That  is  the  plan. 


MARCH  8,  1974 


77 


Mr.  Lewis:  It  is  carefully  worked  out.  We 
know  the  notes  the  minister  gets;  we  get 
copies  of  the  notes  and  ask  other  questions. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon;  We  have  a  cute  Minister 
of  Health. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Cute  in  the  literal  term- 
or just  visually? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  What  is  the  minister's 
answer  to  the  question? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  would  not  say  that  the 
ministry  has  lost  its  interest  in  either  the 
prevention  of  cancer  or,  of  course,  preventive 
medicine.  I  would  think  that  the  conference 
of  health  ministers  of  Canada  and  of  the 
provinces  of  Canada,  held  in  Ottawa  last 
month,  in  fact  pointed  out  how  important 
this  measure  is  and  how  the  focus  of  the 
health  care  programme  has  been  too  much 
upon  treating  illnesses  once  they  arise  and 
not  enough  on  the  prevention. 

I  can  only  say  that  I  am  extremely  keen 
and  very  much  aware  that  in  this  economy 
we  have  today,  where  we  can  afford  the 
luxuries  of  life  that  in  fact  create  poor 
health,  one  of  our  real  problems  is  getting 
people  even  to  care  about  keeping  them- 
selves in  condition  and  taking  some  of  the 
measures  that  are  necessary  to  safeguard 
their  own  health. 

Mr.  Deans:  What  about  those  who  have 
the  incentive? 

Mr.  Shulman:  As  a  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  In  view  of  the  minister's  fine  senti- 
ments, will  he  resume  the  programme  which 
he  abandoned  so  recently  of  paying  for  well- 
female  examinations  every  six  months,  which 
the  second  former  Minister  of  Health  an- 
nounced with  such  a  great  advance  flurry  and 
which  has  been  dropped? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Well,  it  seems  to  me 
this  was  a  subject  of  a  lot  of  controversy  in 
the  press  a  short  while  back.  The  controversy 
was  a  medical  controversy,  not  a  political 
one,  and  that  was  the  question  of  the  value 
of  some  of  the  tests  that  are  involved  in  that 
particular  examination- 
Mr.  Shulman:  The  Pap  smears. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Yes,  the  Pap  smear  test 
specifically.  As  I  recall,  there  was  a  real  war 
between  different  factions  of  the  medical 
profession  as  to  whether  in  fact  the  Pap 
smear  test- 
Mr.  Lewis:  Oh,  surely  not? 


Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  am  recalling  only  what 
the  medical  profession  said. 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  I  don't  think  he  is— not  the 

Pap  test. 

Mr.  Shulman:  A  further  supplementary,  if 
I  may.  Is  the  minister  suggesting  that  there 
is  a  difference  of  opinion  in  the  medical  pro- 
fession as  to  the  value  of  Pap  smears?  Is 
that  what  he  believes?  Is  that  what  he  really 
believes? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  have  found  many  differ- 
ences of  opinion  in  the  medical  profession. 

Mr.  Shulman:  The  minister  is  in  bad 
trouble. 

An  hon.  member:  So  is  the  medical  pro- 
fession. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  York- 
Forest  Hill  is  next. 


INTERMEDIATE  CAPACITY  TRANSIT 
SYSTEM 

Mr.  P.  G.  Givens  (York-Forest  Hill):  I  have 
a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Transportation 
and  Communications:  In  view  of  the  state- 
ment, reported  in  this  morning's  newspaper, 
of  Mr.  Richard  Soberman,  who  advocates  the 
replacement  of  the  Scarborough  Expressway 
by  LRT  instead  of  the  Krauss-Maffei  system 
—because  he  said  that  this  will  work  now, 
and  we  want  something  that  will  work  now 
and  not  in  the  future— would  the  minister 
reconsider  the  complete  GO-Urban  policy  of 
the  ministry  with  a  view  to  accentuating  the 
incoming  of  light  rapid  transit  because  it  is 
more  efficient,  it  is  of  lesser  cost,  it  is  de- 
monstrably better  and  it  is  almost  imme- 
diately available? 

Mr.  Deans:  If  he  opts  for  something  that 
will  work  now  and  not  in  the  future,  he  is 
dead. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  not 
read  Mr.  Soberman's  total  comments.  I  did 
hear  some  reporting  on  it  last  night.  It  seems 
to  me  that  he  didn't  compare  it  with  the 
Krauss-Maffei;  be  simply  said  that  it  was 
possible  to  put  it  in  in  place  of  the  express- 
way and  he  has  stated  that  this  is  what  he 
thought  should  be  done. 

As  to  what  is  the  best  way  of  handling  the 
urban  transit  problem  and  the  best  type  of 
method  to  be  used,  that  is  a  matter  of  opin- 
ion. At  this  time  I'm  not  about  to  say  that  we 


78 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


will  change  the  whole  direction  because  of 
Mr.  Soberman's  statement;  not  at  all. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker; 
Mr.  Soberman's  statement  in  effect  says  that 
the  Krauss-MafFei  system,  through  the  south- 
east as  the  government  had  envisaged  it, 
should  be  abandoned  as  should  the  express- 
way and  that  light  rail  transit,  available  with- 
in two  to  three  years,  be  implemented  along 
a  specific  right  of  way.  Gradually  the  Krauss- 
Maffei  system  is  being  dismembered  point  by 
point.  The  minister  has  only  the  mid-Toronto 
corridor  left  out  of  the  original  five  lanes. 
Surely,  he  would  use  Soberman's  report  as  a 
basis  to  indicate  to  the  House  and  the  public 
that  he  will  reduce  the  overall  amount  of 
money  committed  to  Krauss-Maffei  and  per- 
haps consider  its  abandonment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't 
think  that  the  government's  policy  in  this 
matter  is  going  to  be  dictated  by  a  statement 
made  by  Mr.  Soberman— 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  is  not  just  Soberman. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  —which  in  efi"ect  is  a 
report  to  the  Metropolitan  Toronto  council 
which  hasn't  even  decided  what  it  is  going  to 
do  with  it.  Perhaps  we  should  wait  and  find 
out  what  Metro's  thinking  is  on  it,  initially, 
before  we  start  making  statements  based  on 
his  thoughts. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Metro  clearly  has  purposely  dis- 
carded the  report. 

An  hon.  member:  Right. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Windsor 
West. 


NEGOTIATIONS  ON  BEHALF  OF 
COMMUNITY  COLLEGES 

Mr.  Bounsall:  A  question  of  the  Chairman 
of  the  Management  Board  of  Cabinet,  Mr. 
Speaker,  with  reference  to  the  negotiations 
and  conversations  that  have  taken  place  be- 
tween the  government  and  the  Civil  Service 
Association  of  Ontario  on  behalf  of  the  com- 
munity college  faculties:  Who,  in  his  opinion, 
would  best  decide  which  items  are  negotiable 
when  the  public  service  tribunal  under  Judge 
Little  or  the  arbitration  tribunal  under  Judge 
Anderson  decide  they  don't  have  the  power  to 
decide  which  items  are  negotiable?  Should  it 
be  through  the  courts  or  by  reference  back  to 
the  Legislature  of  Ontario? 


Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  at  the 
moment  this  board  has  been  legally  consti- 
tuted; the  matter  at  this  moment  in  time  is  in 
the  hands  of  Judge  Anderson  and  I  would 
leave  it  to  his  adjudication. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  York 
Centre. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  A  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  All  right,  a  supplementary. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  It  isn't  a  question  of  leaving 
items  to  Judge  Anderson's  decision  or  not.  My 
question  was,  what  is  the  minister  going  to 
do  when  Judge  Anderson  says  he  cannot  de- 
cide which  items  are  negotiable?  Where  will 
that  decision  be  made  in  the  event  that  that 
decision  from  Judge  Anderson  is  forthcoming? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Since  that  board  has  not 
yet  met,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  a  hypothetical 
question  which  I  do  not  wish  to  answer. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  York 
Centre. 


WITHDRAWAL  OF  TEACHERS' 
SERVICES 

Mr.  Deacon:  A  question  of  the  Provincial 
Secretary  for  Social  Development,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: With  the  12-to-8  decision  last  night  of 
the  York  county  board  to  hire  new  teachers, 
will  the  goverimient  intervene  under  the  ap- 
propriate section— it  is  section  12(1)(1)  of  the 
Ministry  of  Education  Act— if  it  has  evidence 
that  a  substantial  percentage  of  the  registered 
voters  of  York  wish  it  to  establish  a  trustee- 
ship and  call  for  a  new  election  of  trustees? 

Hon.  M.  Birch  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Social  Development):  Mr.  Speaker,  the  only 
comment  that  I'd  be  prepared  to  make  at  the 
moment  is  that  the  Minister  of  Education 
(Mr.  Wells)  is  currently  holding  conversa- 
tions  this   morning   with  those  people. 

Mr.  Deacon:  A  further  supplementary:  May 
I  ask  the  provincial  secretary  to  consider  this 
legislation?  I  would  also  ask  the  provincial 
secretary  to  pass  on  to  the  minister  my  ques- 
tion whether,  if  the  government  concludes  the 
existing  legislation  does  not  permit  interven- 
tion in  the  form  I'm  suggesting,  will  the  gov- 
ernment introduce  such  legislation,  because 
if  the  voters  v^^nt  the  board's  actions  to  be 
overruled  we  should  be  sure  they  have  that 
right  to  do  so,  because  I  fear  this  wJiole 
matter  is  going  to  escalate  far  beyond  the 
regions  of  York? 


MARCH  8,  1974 


79 


Mr.  Speaker:  Orderl  Question! 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  will  escalate  to  compulsory 
arbitration. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Any  further  response  to  the 
question? 

Hon.  Mrs.  Birch:   Mr.   Speaker,  I  will  be 
very  happy  to  pass  along  theise  comments. 

Mr.  Speaker:   The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park  is  next. 


ALLEGED  MAFIA  ACTIVITIES 

Mr.  Shulman:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Attorney  General,  Mr.  Speaker.  Is  the 
Attorney  General  aware  that  this  past  week 
in  this  city  a  certain  Billy  Ginsberg,  a  stock 
promoter,  had  his  house  blown  up  and'  his 
partner,  one  Bemie  Frankel,  was  beaten  with 
a  baseball  bat  right  in  the  middle  of  Bay  St. 
for  refusing  to  pay  certain  moneys  to  the 
Mafia? 

Hon.  R.  Welch  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Justice  and  Attorney  General):  No,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the  minister 
is  not  aware,  would  he  be  willing  to  make 
inquiries  and  take  some  action,  because 
obviously  while  the  government  has  got  rid 
of  the  crime  in  the  construction  indtistry,  it 
still  hasn't  touched  the  basic  probletn  of  or- 
ganized crime  in  this  city? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  be 
very  happy  to  look  into  the  matter  referred 
to  by  the  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Can  the  Attorney  General 
imagine  a  beating  on  Bay  St.? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  In  the  middlb  of  Bay  St. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  oral  question  period  has 
now  expired. 

Petitions. 

Presenting  reports. 

Hon.  Mr.  Stewart  presented  the  annual  re- 
port of  the  Crop  Insurance  Commission  of 
Ontario,  1972-1973,  and  the  annual  report  of 
the  Agricultural  Research  Institute  of  On- 
tario. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  \fr.  Speaker,  I  beg  leave 
to  table  the  annual  Ontario  Mineral  Review 
for  1973.  If  I  may,  I  will  make  a  few  com- 
ments on  this  particular  report  with  your  per- 
mission. You  are  aware  this  is  a  very  early 
publication   of  this   summary   of  the  mining 


activity  in  the  Province  of  Ontario.  It  is  a 
long-standing  tradition  within  the  old  Depart- 
ment of  Mines  and  Northern  Affairs  and  this 
has  been  carried  on  into  the  new  Ministry  of 
Natural  Resources. 

This  particular  report  has  gained  accept- 
ance as  an  authoritative  reference  work  of 
valtie  to  the  indtistry  and  to  the  government 
and  to  edticational  institutions,  but  it  is 
always  a  pleasure  to  report  on  the  achieve- 
ments of  the  mining  industry  in  this  province. 
It  is  even  more  of  a  pleasure  than  usual  to 
comment  on  the  result  of  the  past  year,  when 
production  of  minerals  soared  to  an  all-time 
record  of  $1,779  billion,  nearly  $245  million 
better  than  the  total  for  1972.  Translated  into 
terms  of  the  entire  provincial  economy,  this 
means  that  mineral  production  each  year 
amounts  to  about  3.7  per  cent  of  the  gross 
provincial  product. 

Mr.  Deans:  What  did  we  get  in  taxes? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  This  is  surely  a  sector  of 
our  economic  life  which  should  not  go  un- 
noticed. These  and  other  facts— some  not 
generally  known— concerning  this  major  in- 
dustry are  contained  in  this  particular  review. 
The  second  part  of  the  review  deals  with 
some  of  the  facets  of  the  Ministry  of  Natural 
Resources'  operations  in  which  I  am  sure  the 
public  will  be  interested. 

Mr.  Deans:  How  much  more  did  we  get  in 
taxes? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Motions. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler  moves  that  Mr.  Rowe, 
the  member  for  the  electoral  district  of 
Northumberland,  and  Mr.  Hodgson,  the  mem- 
ber for  the  electoral  district  of  York  North, 
be  appointed  chairman  and  deputy  chairman 
respectively  of  the  committees  of  the  whole 
House  for  the  present  session. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Introdliction  of  bills. 

Orders  of  the  day. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  The  first  order,  resum- 
ing the  adtjoumed  debate  on  the  motion  for 
an  address  in  reply  to  the  speech  of  the 
Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor  at  the 
opening  of  the  session. 


THRONE  SPEECH  DEBATE 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  my  first  com- 
ments to  be  directed  to  you,  sir,  and  to  say 


80 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


how  happy  we  all  are  to  see  you  back  in 
that  chair,  looking  your  old  self  and  full  of 
fire,  and  to  assure  you  of  our  complete  con- 
fidence in  your  ability  to  govern  our  debates 
with  justice  and  fairness.  We  reserve  the 
right,  of  course,  to  amend  that  opinion  as 
events  require.  However,  I  recall  to  your 
mind,  sir,  that  it  wasn't  this  side  that  chal- 
lenged your  ruling  before  Christmas. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  Where  is 
he  now? 

Mr.  E.  R.  Good  (Waterloo  North):  Look 
what  happened  to  him. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  You  have  had,  more  or 
less,  to  suffer  this  sort  of  challenge  and 
harassment  from  all  sides.  Still,  it  is  our 
opinion  you  do  it  with  grace  and  ability  and 
we  are  very  glad,  sir,  to  see  you  have  made 
a  full  recovery  and  are  back  with  us  in  your 
position  of  importance  and  authority. 

I  would  like,  sir,  to  state  as  well  that  all 
of  us  are  sorry  to  see  the  end  of  the  term 
of  our  present  Lieutenant  Governor.  There 
will  be  an  occasion,  surely,  when  this  can  be 
expressed  by  other  members  as  well  and  I 
am  very  glad  to  see  that  the  Premier  (Mr. 
Davis)  has  taken  some  initiative  in  this  re- 
gard. It  is  very  fitting  indeed. 

I  feel  a  special  responsibility  in  this  con- 
nection since  His  Honour  resides  in  my 
area,  although  not  directly  in  my  constitu- 
ency, and  he  has  been  associated  in  his 
former  political  life  at  least  with  me  and 
my  father.  Ross  Macdonald  was  first  elected 
to  Parliament  in  1935  and  as  you  are  aware 
has  had  many  high  posts  of  pohtical  respon- 
sibility with  the  government  of  Canada  and 
in  the  Senate.  His  term  as  Lieutenant  Gov- 
ernor has  really  shown  the  strength  and 
breadth  of  the  Governor  as  a  man.  I  know 
of  no  person  in  that  position  in  our  history 
who  is  more  loved  and  revered  and  hon- 
oured in  all  parts  of  the  province  and  right 
here  in  this  House. 

I  want  to  speak  briefly  about  the  situation 
that  concerns  us  pertaining  to  education. 
The  newspapers  and  radio  reports  inform  us 
that  a  large  group  of  citizens  from  the  York 
area  is  going  to  come  to  Queen's  Park  today 
and  no  doubt  will  be  coming  within  the 
next  few  minutes.  I  feel,  sir,  that  the  serious- 
ness of  the  situation  cannot  be  overestimated. 
It  appears  that  the  government,  particularly 
the  Minister  of  Education  (Mr.  Wells),  has 
run  out  of  any  viable  initiative  and  although 
we  are  told  by  the  provincial  secretary  that 
he  is  meeting  with  groups  from  that  area  at 


the  present  time,  the  fact  remains  that  the 
government's  policy  is  seen  to  be  chaotic.  It 
has  really  led  to  a  fiasco  in  which  the  schools 
in  that  area  have  been  closed  for  five  weeks 
in  an  effort  to  allow  negotiations,  hopefully 
conducted  in  good  faith,  to  come  to  agree- 
ment or  some  acceptable  fruition. 

I  have  had  an  opportunity,  along  with  the 
hon.  member  for  Port  Arthur  (Mr.  Foulds) 
to  visit  the  area  on  the  invitation  of  the 
striking  teachers,  to  express  our  views  to 
them  and  hear  their  own.  I  can't  help  feeling 
that  in  the  circumstances  in  York  it  is  difii- 
cult  to  put  all  the  blame  for  the  protracted 
strike  on  one  side  or  the  other.  I  feel  that 
the  trustees  have  an  incorrect  understanding 
of  their  elected  and  elective  responsibility. 
They  somehow  feel  that  they  are  saving  the 
rest  of  the  province  from  the  encroachment 
of  teacher  authority.  I  get  a  feeling  they 
have  a  fear  that  they  must  not  give  in  to 
the  demands  of  the  teachers  and,  as  a  result 
of  their  intransigence  and,  in  my  opinion, 
their  lack  of  understanding  of  the  situation, 
the  schools  have  remained  closed  for  this 
very  long  period  of  time. 

In  talking  to  the  teachers  they  have  eight 
specific  areas  on  which  they  are  basing  their 
strike;  some  of  them  are  more  significant 
than  others.  Very  specifically,  they  are  de- 
manding a  say  in  working  conditions  and 
specifically  in  the  pupil-teacher  ratio.  In  my 
opinion,  this  is  the  crux  of  the  problem;  the 
trustees  feel  that  allowing  the  teachers  to 
take  part  in  that  sort  of  negotiation  would 
hand  over  what  they  consider  to  be  their 
sole  responsibility,  that  is  the  power  to  run 
the  schools. 

The  problem  that  I  see  is  that  the  trustees 
don't  realize  that  the  community,  certainly 
the  members  of  this  Legislature,  the  Min- 
ister of  Education  himself,  have  stated  cate- 
gorically that  the  teachers,  through  their 
professional  organizations  and  individually 
through  their  negotiating  teams,  do  have  a 
responsibility  to  participate  and  negotiate  the 
conditions  of  work.  The  fact  that  the  trus- 
tees have  been  unwilling  to  accept  that  is 
perhaps  more  than  anything  else  the  single 
rock  upon  which  the  negotiations  have  foun- 
dered so  far. 

I  must  be  frank  as  well  and  say  that  in 
our  visits  to  the  teachers  in  the  area,  and  I 
believe  we  had  an  opportunity  to  speak  to 
all  670  of  them  and  hear  questions  and 
comments  from  a  good  many  of  them,  we 
found  that  one  thing  that  does  not  appear 
in  the  negotiations  was  very  much  in  their 
mind.   I  refer,  and  it's  rather  unfortunate   I 


MARCH  8,  1974 


81 


have  to  refer  to  this,  to  their  lack  of  con- 
fidence in  the  ability  of  the  director  of  edu- 
cation himself.  Certainly  it  is  not  my  place 
nor  my  desire  to  be  critical  of  him  but 
simply  to  report  to  you,  sir,  that  he  does 
not  seem  to  have  the  confidence  of  the 
teachers;  yet  this  is  a  matter  which  appar- 
ently has  not  come  up  for  any  considerable 
public  discussion. 

The  trustees  on  the  other  hand  have,  in  my 
view,  failed  to  come  to  grips  with  the  very 
real  problems  the  teachers  nave  indicated 
clearly  are  the  negotiating  points,  I  refer 
specifically,  as  I  say,  to  the  right  the  teachers 
feel  they  must  have,  not  only  in  York  but  else- 
where in  this  province,  to  negotiate,  the  terms 
of  employment  of  course  but  also  the  condi- 
tions of  work.  This  seems  to  be  the  shoal 
beyond  which  we  must  pass  if  a  settlement 
is  going  to  be  achieved. 

I  would  call  on  the  Minister  of  Education 
to  make  it  clear,  if  in  fact  he  has  not  already 
made  it  clear,  that  we  are  going  to  insist  on 
that  being  a  term  to  be  negotiated';  and  that 
the  trustees  must  simply  accept  it,  because  it 
is  going  to  be  and  is  already  stated  as  the 
policy  of  not  only  the  government  of  Ontario 
and  the  Ministry  of  Education  but  the  Legis- 
lature. 

The  situation  that  we  presently  have  is 
approaching  chaos  in  York.  The  fact  that  the 
trustees  are  now  going  to  attempt,  based  on  a 
decision  of  a  divided  vote  taken  last  night, 
to  fill  the  vacant  positions  by  hiring  omer 
teachers  is  completely  irresponsible  and'  un- 
tenable. I  don't  believe  there  is  any  possibility 
that  this  can  come  about,  since  in  fact  tlie 
whole  system  has  been  brought  to  a  close  by 
the  inability  of  the  trustees  and  the  teachers 
to  reach  a  reasonable  agreement. 

The  minister  must,  of  course,  take  a  per- 
sonal responsibility  for  this  since  his  in- 
adequate policies  in  Bill  274,  following  for- 
ward in  Bill  275,  have  led^  to  this  chaotic 
situation.  The  principle  put  forward  by  the 
government,  opposed  by  the  two  opposition 
parties,  was  that  in  no  circumstances  would 
the  schools  close.  Well  the  schools  are  closed, 
but  the  unfortunate  aspect  is  that  the  minis- 
ter has  not  used  his  authority,  or  at  least  his 
good  oflBces,  to  require  that  the  two  sides  do 
sit  down  together,  not  just  through  their 
negotiating  legal  representation,  and  in  the 
presence  of  the  minister  continue  to  negotiate 
until  a  settlement  is  reached.  I  beheve  that 
putting  this  oflF  for  such  a  protracted'  period 
in  the  hands  of  the  negotiators  for  the  Minis- 
try of  Labour  is  inadequate  undbr  these  cir- 
cumstances; the  minister  has  shown  a  sub- 
stantial failure  in  his  ability  in  this  regard. 


The  government's  policy  has  been  knocked 
into  a  cocked  hat.  It  was  unacceptable  to 
begin  with  and  even  they  have  withdrawn 
from  it.  Just  a  week  ago  the  Premier  himself 
said  that  perhaps  even  the  concept  of  com- 
pulsory arbitration  is  subject  to  review,  as 
certainly  it  should  be.  It's  going  to  be  noth- 
ing but  a  continuing  diflBculty  for  them  as 
they  attempt  to  impose  it  on  a  broader  and 
broader  area  of  the  people  in  this  province. 

The  teachers  of  the  community  colleges 
are  finding  it  completely  unacceptable  and 
it  was  ridiculous  in  the  extreme  to  lump  the 
teachers  in  the  community  colleges  in  with 
the  new  civil  service  negotiating  procedures 
statute  that  was  passed  by  thisi  House  now 
some  months  ago.  To  require,  by  law,  that 
these  people  must  attend  to  their  classroom 
duties  and  their  right  to  withdraw  their  ser- 
vices be  taken  away  is  unconscionable  and 
inadmissible  and  is  going  to  be  nothing  but 
a  problem  for  the  government  in  the  future. 

I  would  predict  from  the  way  things  are 
going  now  that  there  will  be  an  illegal  strike 
in  the  community  colleges.  Once  again,  while 
we  are  all  prepared  to  say  that  this  is  un- 
fortunate, still  if  those  classrooms  close,  it 
will  be  because  of,  as  much  as  anything,  not 
the  inability  of  the  government  to  bargain 
with  the  teachers  concerned  but  because  of 
the  requirement  of  a  tribunal  imposing  a 
settlement  which  the  teachers  do  not  feel  is 
in  their  best  interests. 

The  same  can  be  said  for  the  hospital 
workers— that  while  we,  on  this  side,  are  pre- 
pared to  support  compulsory  arbitration  for 
an  essential  service  like  hospitals,  it  is  mean- 
ingless, of  course,  and  unfair  in  the  extreme, 
if  it  is  going  to  be  imposed  at  the  same  time 
that  spending  ceilings  directly  associated  with 
the  salaries  of  the  working  staff  involved  are 
going  to  be  impeded'  ahead  of  all  other  con- 
siderations. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  two  govern- 
ment ministries  have  inaugurated  studies  into 
the  inequities  in  the  hospital  workers'  situa- 
tion. The  regrettable  thing  is  that  this'  simply 
postpones  a  rational  and  just  settlement  as  it 
would  pertain  to  the  problems'  that  the  hos- 
pital workers  have  experienced  over  so  many 
years.  We  have  seen  an  illegal  strike  in  the 
hospital  situation  a  year  ago  last  summer. 
There  was  no  final  conclusion  there.  It  was 
simply  an  embarrassment  for  everyone  con- 
cerned since  we  believe  that  the  law  should 
be  respected  but,  in  a  case  such  as  this  where 
government  regulation  rather  imposes  itself 
on  any  concept  of  fairness,  it  is  a  serious 
matter  indeed. 


82 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


The  Minister  of  Education  has  the  respon- 
sibility in  his  hand^  completely.  It  has  been 
suggested  that  if  the  school  board  cannot 
function,  a  petition  in  the  local  area  might 
very  well  be  used  to  ask  the  minister  to  inter- 
vene with  his  undoubted  powers  and  directly. 
We,  on  this  side,  would  hope  that  that  is  un- 
necessary. 

There  was  an  indication  last  week  that  the 
members  of  the  board  of  trustees  were  think- 
ing of  resigning  in  a  body.  That  too,  surely, 
is  a  very  extreme  situation  when  the  solution 
lies  within  their  hands.  If  the  minister  were 
to  indicate  that  his  ceilings,  which  have  been 
disrupting  the  negotiations  both  there  and 
elsewhere,  can  be  moderated  to  settle  this 
strike,  then  surely  this  is  what  must  be  done. 

We  do  not  believe  that  the  teachers,  as  a 
group,  are  so  lacking  in  moderation  that  they 
are  not  prepared  to  come  to  some  settlement 
somewhere  between  the  two  extreme  salary 
demands.  After  all,  settlement  has  been 
achieved  in  many  other  situations  similar  to 
this.  But  I  would  say  that  the  minister  owes 
it  to  the  students  in  the  area,  as  well  as  to 
the  parents  who  are  going  to  be  talking  to 
him,  no  doubt,  outside  the  Legislature  a  bit 
later,  to  intervene  personally  to  see  that  the 
two  sides  sit  down  in  each  other's  preisence 
and  to  keep  at  it  until  a  settlement  is  reached, 
because  surely  one  is  possible.  We  will  not 
admit  that  a  situation  could  develop  where  a 
settlement  is  not  possible  if  the  minister  is 
persuaded  that  his  ceilings  must  be  at  least 
moderated  in  this  particular  situation  and 
that  he  must  take  a  personal  position  in  that 
regard. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  wanted  to  say  something 
about  that  at  the  beginning  of  my  remarks 
because  it  is  a  matter  of  great  urgency  and 
pertains  to  high  policy  that  the  government 
has  put  forward  over  a  number  of  years,  a 
policy  associated  with  the  removal  of  die 
right  to  strike  and  the  freedom  of  the  indivi- 
dual in  this  regard  which,  I  believe,  they 
now  see  to  be  unacceptable.  We  have  two 
policy  ministers  here  this  morning.  It  is  very 
good  of  them  to  stay  around  and  I  would 
hope  that  they  are  in  a  position,  perhaps,  to 
indicate  to  their  colleagues  that,  surely  an 
amendment  to  that  policy  is  required. 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  Two 
practising  ministers. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  You  know,  certain  things 
have  been  happening  of  substantial  impor- 
tance in  this  regard  and  it  seems  to  me  that 
the  Premier  himself— although  he  is  not  here 
this  morning,  and  I  regret  that  and  I'm  sure 


he  does  too— the  Premier  himself  is  carefully 
searching  his  alternatives  to  find  a  political 
stance  which  is  more  acceptable  to  the  people 
of  the  province  and  perhaps  more  acceptable 
even  to  his  supporters  in  this  Legislature. 

We  have  been  extremely  interested  in  re- 
ports that  have  indicated  that  the  private 
public  opinion  polling  and  sampHng  organ- 
ization funded  by  the  Conservative  Party  has 
been  making  regular  reports  to  the  Premier 
and  the  government  on  these  matters  week 
by  week.  There  was  every  indication  that 
during  the  problems  with  the  teachers  and 
the  school  boards  before  Christmas  that  the 
sampling  organization— I  believe  it  is  based 
in  Detroit— had  indicated  to  the  Premier  that 
he  and  the  Minister  of  Education  had  the 
high  ground  and  that  the  people  said,  "Sure, 
put  it  to  the  teachers.  They  get  too  much 
money,  they  don't  work  hard  enough,  and 
they  are  getting  too  big  for  their  boots." 
Somehow  or  other  they  took  that  kind  of 
advice  much  too  seriously  and  there  has  been 
a  backlash  across  this  community  which  indi- 
cates that  the  people  are  substantially  and' 
seriously  displeased  with  the  inadequacies  in 
government  policy  in  that  connection. 

It  is  interesting  when  you  hear  the  Premier 
waffle  on  his  positions.  You  can  almost  think 
that  the  day  before  somebody  would  phone 
him  up— and  we  wouldn't  suggest  that  it  was 
Dalton  Camp  Associates,  or  anybody  like 
that— and  say,  "Gosh,  this  week  things  don't 
look  quite  as  good.  Bill.  Maybe  you  had 
better  moderate  that  a  little  bit."  It  seems  to 
me  that  policy  is  largely  being  made  by  the 
responses  from  the  public  opinion  polling 
organizations  that  privately  report,  but 
another  indication  is  that  the  Premier  has 
found  himself  personally  in  receipt  of  prob- 
ably the  poorest  support  across  the  province 
that  he  has  ever  experienced. 

It  was  interesting,  I  think,  last  fall  to  read 
in  the  Toronto  Star— it  wasn't  a  private  poll 
and  it  wasn't  a  poll  that  actually  inspired  me 
in  all  of  its  particulars  but  there  was  a 
poll  published  then  that  indicated  that  only 
28  per  cent  of  the  people  of  the  province 
were  satisfied  with  the  leadership  and  admin- 
istrative abilities  of  the  Premier,  and  I  sup- 
pose it  was  a  response  to  what  they  thought 
of  the  Premier  as  an  individual.  We  have 
heard,  and  it  has  been  reliably  reported,  on 
the  CBC  no  less,  tiiat  a  private  poll  is  now 
available  to  the  Conservatives  indicating 
almost  the  identical  levels  of  support,  or  lack 
of  it  in  this  case,  for  the  Premier  and  his 
leadership  in  the  province  and  in  the  party. 
This  has  surely  galvanized  him  into  the  kind 


MARCH  8,  1974 


83 


of   action  which  we   have  seen   in  the  last 
few  weeks. 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Oh  yes,  well  I  was  talk- 
ing about  his  other  capacity,  of  course. 


Mr.  Foulds:  That  is  not  galvanized  action.  Mr.  Breithaupt:  His  other  hat. 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  tell  you  when  the 
Premier  and  his  policy  ministers,  who  have 
always  got  time  to  travel  around  the— 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  New 
awareness! 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  —province  with  him 
although  they  may  not  have  time  to  come 
into  the  Legislature  and  listen  to  the  debate, 
the  Premier  goes  out  weekend  after  weekend, 
they  hire  a  hall  or  get  one  donated,  since 
they  usually  indicate  that  they  want  to  do  it 
as  economically  as  possible,  and  there  he  is 
every  Saturday  morning  talking  to  the  citizens 
and  listening  to  them.  And  believe  me  I  will 
be  the  last- 
Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  That  in- 
cludes asking  him  questions. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  would  be  the  last  to 
criticize  him  for  doing  that.  I  just  wish  his 
responsibility  carried  over  into  the  feeling 
that  he  should  attend  the  Legislature  for 
these  debates,  which  he  obviously  considers 
to  be  rather  routine  and  nonproductive. 

Mr.  Foulds:  The  only  thing  that  is  gal- 
vanized is  the  garbage  cans. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  tell  you  that  this  is  a 
response  and  he  is  sitting  down  with  his 
coterie  of  political  advisers  and  they  are  say- 
ing, "Okay,  we  are  going  to  have  to  go  to 
Barrie  this  Saturday.  We've  got  to  get  to 
Kingston  the  next  Saturday,  London  the  next, 
and  we  are  going  to  go  up  into  the  north," 
and  so  on.  Good  politics;  you  would  almost 
think  that  an  election  campaign  was  on,  be- 
cause I  notice  that  the  leader  of  the  NDP  is 
pretty  active  around  the  province  as  well  and, 
by  God,  so  is  the  leader  of  the  Liberal  Party. 

Mr.  J.  P.  MacBeth  (York  West):  About  time, 
since  those  guys  got  the  new  cars. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  And  I  wouM  say  to  you, 
Mr.  Speaker,  in  your  other  capacity,  that  your 
own  activities  have  been  noted  in  bringing 
to  the  attention  of  the  citizens  and  the  tax- 
payers of  this  province  the  substantial  in- 
equities in  the  policies  of  the  present  govern- 
ment, and  that  you,  sir,  yourself  have  done 
this  in  your  political  capacity  in  a  most  ad- 
mirable and  ejffective  way. 

Mr.  Renwick:  He  is  the  Speaker,  nonparti- 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That's  right.  So  the  one 
response  to  the  information  that  has  come  to 
the  Premier  that  he  is  failing  in  maintaining 
this  kind  of  support  is  to  bring  him  into  the 
House.  I  tell  you  that  that  is  much  appreciated 
since  this  debate,  in  my  view  and  in  his  I 
know,  is  one  of  substantial  importance,  where 
in  my  view  policies  of  the  government  can  be 
influenced,  affected  and  changed,  and  where 
he  owes  a  duty  to  his  high  office  to  attend. 
He  is  now  surrounded  by  five  cabinet  min- 
isters, so  this  is  becoming  a  great  occasion  in- 
deed; and  I  hope  that  I  will  Hve  up  to  those 
expectations. 

His  second  response  was  to  realize  that  the 
perception  of  his  cabinet  and  himself  across 
the  province  was  that  somehow  or  other  the 
control  that  the  people  had  come  to  expect 
from  his  predecessors  had  been  lost;  the  con- 
trol of  the  leader  over  the  party,  the  control 
of  the  Premier  over  the  government. 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  How  about 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition's  control  over 
his  party? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't 
seem  to  be  bothered  with  problems  of  con- 
trolling the  party.  We  work  together  for  the 
good  of  us  all;  and  it  seems  to  me  to  be 
working  very  effectively  indeed. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  majority  of  his  party 
voted  against  him. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  So  the  Premier  says: 
"Phase  two  is  to  shake  up—" 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  If  he 
wants  to  talk  about  problems  of  control,  he 
can  talk  to  me. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  "—this  gang  of  scala- 
wags and  to  dismiss  from  the  cabinet  those 
who  are  seen  to  be  ineffectual  and  put  in 
their  place  those  who  perhaps  can  try  again." 

Mr.  M.  Gaunt  (Huron-Bruce):  And  some- 
body disagreed  and  somebody  didn't. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That's  it.  Well,  I  don't 
want  to  spend  a  lot  of  time  talking  about 
the  cabinet  changes,  other  than  to  probably 
express  a  personal  view  about  one  or  two  of 
them. 

I  was  very  sorry  indeed  to  see  the  former 
Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communica- 
tions (Mr.  Carton)  let's  say  dismissed.  He  is 


84 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


sitting  now  up  in  the  back  row  there,  happier 
than  he  has  been  for  a  long  time.  And  to  tell 
you  the  truth,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  look  forward 
to  hearing  him  take  part  in  the  debate  later 
this  session,  because  as  a  private  member  his 
contributions  to  the  general  debates  were 
probably  among  the  best  that  came  from  any 
side. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Agreed,  with  one  exception. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  can  remember  on  one 
occasion  he  used  his  very  persuasive  style 
to  persuade  the  former  Premier  to  make  ade- 
quate compensation  and  adequate  financing  to 
the  residents  who  had  lost  their  rights  and 
their  privacy  along  the  expanded  401. 

He  somehow  lost  his  fire  when  he  came 
c'own  to  the  front  desk  and  appeared  once 
again  to  be  subject  to  the  dictation  of  his 
boss.  Now  that  he  is  back  in  the  back  row, 
I  think  that  we  may  be  treated  once  again  to 
perhaps  some  more  independent  expressions  of 
his  opinions. 

I  thought  perhaps  one  of  the  most  fatuous 
editorial  comment  that  was  made  about  the 
cabinet  changes  was  in  reference  to  the  Min- 
ister of  Transportation  and  Communications. 
It  said  he  was  fired  because  he  had  approved 
too  many  expressways;  that  the  Premier 
dismissed  him  to  show  once  and  for  all  and 
for  everyone  to  see  that  there  were  going 
to  be  no  more  expressways,  and  that  it  was 
the  Premier's  wish. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Is  the  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position still  in  favour  of  Spadina? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  should  not  perhaps  para- 
phrase the  Globe  and  Mail  editorial  quite  so 
freely,  but  that  was  the  concept.  I  have  a 
feeling  that  the  decision  to  go  ahead  with 
Highway  402  was  not  dictated  by  anybody, 
except  maybe  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and 
Food  (Mr.  Stewart),  assisted  by  his  now  parlia- 
mentary secretary  and  certain  others— that  the 
decision  to  go  ahead  with— what  is  it?— 406 
down  in  the  St.  Catharines  area,  was  not  a 
decision  made  autocratically  by  the  Minister 
of  Transportation  and  Communications,  but 
simplv  a  political  decision  made  on  ballots  by 
the  Tories  in  the  area. 

It  may  well'  be  that  the  former  Minister  of 
Transportation  and  Communications  was  not 
prepared  to  accept  the  new  political  reahty 
and  that  the  time  has  come  to  start  spending 
some  money  in  the  north.  I  agree  whole- 
heartedly that  the  time  to  spend  money  in 
the  north  is  now  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
politically  the  government  is  doing  the  right 


thing.  The  people  in  the  north  have  suffered 
for  a  long  period  of  time  from  an  inadequate 
share  of  the  transportation  budget,  and  surely, 
the  changes  in  that  regard  are  going  to  be  of 
great  importance. 

The  second  former  cabinet  minister  I  want 
to  deal  with  just  briefly  is  the  former  Attorney 
General  (Mr.  Bales),  who  was  subject  to  a 
great  deal  of  criticism  in  the  House  for  his 
land  holdings  in  the  Pickering  area.  Certainly 
we  criticized  him  for  saying  that  if  there  were 
profits  there  he  would  give  them  to  charity, 
but  I  recall  to  you,  sir,  that  the  former 
Attorney  General  himself  stated  publicly  that 
he  was  prepared  to  resign  if  his  boss  felt  that 
there  was  a  conflict  of  interest  of  any  sub- 
stance or  concern  there.  He  was  supported 
at  the  time  by  the  Premier.  I  felt  that  under 
those  circumstances  that  the  former  Attorney 
General  should  have  resigned,  just  as  the 
present  Minister  of  Energy  (Mr.  McKeough) 
resigned  under  similar  circumstances. 

It  has  been  a  tradition  in  our  democratic 
process  that  those  resignations  are  usually 
followed  sometimes  by  a  by-election  or  a 
general  election  in  which  the  people  assess 
the  charges  themselves  and  in  the  best  of  all 
courts,  the  democratic  court,  the  people  give 
a  judgement.  In  the  case  oiF  the  Minister  of 
Energy,  he  has  madfe  his  way  back  without 
such  a  judgement,  but  probably  the  member 
for  York  Mills  should  have  resigned  under 
those  circumstances,  rather  than  wait  and  be 
cut  off  in  the  ignominious  way  in  which  he 
was  retired  from  the  cabinet  just  a  few  days 
ago. 

I  know  that  the  Premier  expressed  publicly 
the  problem  that  he  faced  under  those  cir- 
cumstances. I'm  sure  he  was  remembering  the 
fact  that  the  former  Attorney  General  is  a 
man  of  integrity  and  a  fine  man. 

Mr.  L.  M.  Reilly  (Eglinton):  A  fine  man. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I'm  sure  he  even  re- 
membered that  in  his  political  capacity  the 
former  Attorney  General  was  chairman  of 
the  "Bill  Davis  for  Leader"  campaign  in 
Toronto  and  York.  Now  we  find  the  former 
Attorney  General  up  in  the  back  row  con- 
templating his  future,  probably  in  private 
practice. 

It's  too  bad,  but  I  suppose  the  Premier  felt, 
if  his  support  was  down  to  28  per  cent  and 
the  experts  were  telling  him  that  his  cabinet 
was  seen  as  a  collection  of  people  who  were 
prepared  to  live  with  conflict  of  interest,  who 
were  prepared  to  dfefend  contracts  going  to 
companies  who  had  given  substantial  political 
donations;  and  that  the  cabinet  was  prepared 


MARCH  8,  1974 


85 


to  allow  large  contracts  to  be  awarded  with- 
out any  reasonable  tendering  procedures  at 
all,  that  somehow  or  other  it  had  to  be 
changed  and  turned  around. 

I'm  not  so  sure  that  he  has  done  this.  He 
fired  five.  Let's  say  five  are  no  longer  in  the 
cabinet.  The  former  Minister  of  Correctional 
Services  (Mr.  Apps),  the  Lady  Byng  award 
winner,  had  indicated  quite  clearly  that  he 
was  not  prepared  to  run  again,  but  the 
Premier  jumped  at  the  chance  to  get  him  out 
of  there.  You  remember  Syl  always  thought 
he  was  going  to  be  minister  of  youth.  It  was 
too  bad  in  many  respects  that  he  never  had 
a  chance  to  show  what  he  could  db  in  pre- 
paring programmes  and  having  them  accepted 
by  the  young  people  in  the  province. 

He  was  brought  into  the  cabinet  in  the 
Correctional  Services  ministry,  which  is  kind 
of  a  passing-out  ministry.  The  present  minis- 
ter, the  former  Minister  of  Health  (Mr. 
Potter),  says  that  he  is  going  into  that  minis- 
try for  a  rest.  Surely  that's  a  strange  way  to 
approach  this  high  responsibility,  but  I 
noticed  as  I  glanced  over  to  the  former  Min- 
ister of  Health  during  question  period  that 
he  was  relaxing  and  enjoying  it,  as  his  col- 
leagues were  attempting  to  explain  why  large 
advertising  budgets  are  still  being  paid  out 
without  any  contract  and  so  on. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Just  like  in  Ottawa. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  Premier  says  just  like 
in  Ottawa.  If  he  thinks  he  is  someihow  de- 
stroying the  argument  by  saying  that,  then  he 
is  pretty  naive,  because  if  they  are  doing 
the  same  thing  in  Ottawa,  then  they  are 
serious  rip-off  artists  just  like  this  govern- 
ment. 

Mr.  Ruston:  That  is  right. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I'll  tell  you  this,  Mr. 
Speaker,  when  we  open  the  newspapers  and 
see  these  tremendous  ads  about  a  fair  share 
for  the  taxpayers  of  Ontario,  we  realize  that 
the  spending  machine  is  starting  a  role  begun 
by  Bob  Macaulay  who  is  retained  at— what? 
$70  an  hour— by  the  government  to  advise  on 
energy  policy.  It  is  really  the  same  old  advice 
that  he  gave  back  in  1962  when  he  said, 
"Let's  get  into  the  advertising  business." 
What  did  they  call  it?  You  know,  the  hippo- 
potamus. 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  He  said,  "Let's  have  a 
bis;  advertising  programme.  Let's  rent  all  the 
billboards.  Let's  take  the  full  page  ads.  Let's 


have  four  colours  on  the  television.  Who  is 
to  stop  us?" 

Wasn't  Bob  Macaulay  the  one  who  said 
that?  And  now  we  see  the  advertising  by 
Ontario.  That  was  it.  Now  it's  a  fair  share 
Ontario.  It's  almost  like  the  new  deal  but 
fair  share  goes  pretty  well. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  More  like  the  old  deal. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  thing  is,  Mr.  Speak- 
er, that  we  have  seen  this  ever  since  Macau- 
lay thought  about  it  for  the  election  of  1963 
—it  happened  in  1967  and  1971,  and  now 
we  are  building  up  to  the  1975— where,  in 
the  guise  of  informing  the  citizens  and  tax- 
payers about  government  policy,  they  simply 
spend  the  citizens'  money  in  self-aggrandize- 
ment and  political  propaganda.  That's  exactly 
what  is  happening,  and  the  fact  that  Dal  ton 
Camp  Associates  gets  $1,250,000  without  a 
contract  or  any  agreement— 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  They  don't  get  it.  They 
don't  get  it. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  —simply  confirms  to  me, 
sir,  as  I  am  sure  it  does  to  you,  that  this 
government  in  its  policy  is  directed  by  the 
public  opinion  polls  that  are  fed  to  the 
Premier  week  by  week.  We  can  see  the 
backing  and  filling  that  comes  as  he  receives 
them.  He  is  concerned  that  his  personal 
support  in  the  province,  we  are  told,  is  down 
to  28  per  cent— I  wish  I  could  report  some- 
thing as  dramatic  on  the  other  side— so  he 
shakes  up  the  cabinet,  dismisses  his  old 
friends,  brings  in  a  bunch  of  new  people 
who  are  untried  and  who  are  going  to  be 
failures  in  turn. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  No.  Great  ministers. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Then  we  turn  to  the 
Speech  from  the  Throne,  which  is  a  third 
sort  of  level  of  defence:  "What  can  I  do  to 
restore  the  confidence  and  the  good  feeling 
in  'good  old  Bill'  from  Brampton?"  I  believe 
that  even  on  this  level  there  is  another  seri- 
ous failure.  I  listened  with  care  to  the  read- 
ing of  the  speech,  I  have  since  examined  it 
very  carefully,  and  I  have  found  that  it  is 
substantially  insignificant. 

Let  me  be  fair.  I  think  the  idea  of  a 
prescription  drug  plan  for  pensioners  is 
great.  I  think  it  is  a  programme  that  is  going 
to  be  supported  on  all  sides.  The  concept  of 
an  environmental  hearing  board  is  one  that 
is  important  and  we  will  give  it  the  support 
it  deserves  if  in  fact  there  is  an  objective 
hearing  on  the  large  programmes  that  the 
government  brings  forward  which  are  inter- 


86 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


fering  with  the  environment  so  seriously.  But 
in  general  it  does  not  come  to  grips  with 
the  problems  of  inflation  and  the  cost  of 
living,  it  does  not  come  to  grips  with  the 
problems  of  provision  of  housing  and  land- 
use  planning;  it  is  in  this  latter  area  that  I 
want  to  speak  more  directly  for  a  few  mo- 
ments. 

The  Ontario  Task  Force  on  Housing  re- 
ported several  months  ago  that  there  is  a 
near-crisis  in  housing  in  this  province  but,  as 
the  Speech  from  the  Throne  has  revealed,  the 
provincial  government  still  has  no  policy  to 
control  spiralling  land  and  housing  costs.  The 
average  resale  price  of  homes  in  Hamilton, 
for  example,  was  21  per  cent  higher  in  the 
last  half  of  1973  than  a  year  earlier.  House 
lot  prices  in  Ottawa  jumped  up  150  per  cent 
from  1965  to  1972.  The  average  price  of  all 
houses  sold  in  Ontario  rose  by  26  per  cent 
between  1970  and  1973,  with  much  more 
spectacular  increases  in  specific  communi- 
ties, such  as  Metropolitan  Toronto. 

The  real  problem,  the  most  serious  prob- 
lem is  here  in  the  Metro  area,  where  the  cost 
of  shelter  rose  by  36  per  cent  last  year 
alone.  Thirty-six  per  cent  in  one  year,  an 
increase  of  $1,000  per  month  on  the  average 
house.  The  housing  cost  increase  was  about 
four  times  as  much  as  the  rise  in  the  cost  of 
living  and  almost  twice  as  much  as  food 
price  increases  in  1973. 

Everywhere  in  Ontario  housing  prices  are 
out  of  control  and  the  ripples,  almost  tidal 
waves,  from  the  Toronto  housing  situation 
are  spreading  throughout  southern  Ontario 
as  prospective  home  buyers  and  land  specu- 
lators search  farther  and  farther  afield. 

In  St.  Catharines,  for  example,  land  prices 
started  to  rise  about  18  months  ago  because 
of  pressures  in  the  Toronto  real  estate  mar- 
ket. In  Barrie,  another  good  example,  almost 
all  housing  purchases  can  be  directly  attri- 
buted to  the  lack  of  housing  and  the  high 
prices  in  this  very  community. 

The  Ontario  Economic  Council  reported 
last  year,  "The  primary  cause  is  the  scarcity 
of  developed  land,"  something  that  the  new 
Minister  of  Housing  (Mr.  Handleman)  has 
indicated  that  he  is  prepared  to  accept  and 
act  on  if  possible.  The  demand  for  land  far 
exceeds  the  supply,  and  the  shortage  has 
been  heightened  by  competition  for  available 
sites  between  foreign  and  domestic  capital. 
The  result  is  artificially  high  land  costs  which 
are  eventually  passed  on  to  home  buyers. 

German,  Swiss,  American,  Japanese  and 
British  investors  have  all  been  attracted  to 
Ontario's  buoyant  property  market,  but  their 


demand  for  real  estate  has  resulted  in  in- 
flated housing  prices  for  Canadians.  Last 
year  the  Urban  Development  Institute  re- 
vealed that  13  foreign-controlled  companies 
owned  half  of  the  land  available  for  housing 
between  Oshawa  and  Burlington.  Let  me 
repeat  that:  Between  Oshawa  and  Burlington, 
half  the  land  available  for  development— that 
is,  half  of  the  land  that  has  been  assembled— 
is  owned  by  13  foreign-controlled  companies. 

Foreign  firms  have  also  made  substantial 
purchases  in  other  parts  of  the  province. 
Now,  in  this  House  there  are  members  from 
every  area  of  Ontario  and,  Mr.  Speaker,  as 
an  individual  member  you  are  aware  of  the 
intrusions  of  buyers  from  outside  the  com- 
munity and  from  outside  Canada  who  are 
prepared  to  buy  anything  in  the  way  of  real 
estate  or  property  at  any  price. 

In  my  own  community,  you  go  into  the 
small  towns  and  you  find  that  the  old  hotel, 
maybe  or  maybe  not  licensed  premises,  often 
in  a  state  of  disrepair,  economically  unviable 
under  present  circumstances,  has  recently 
been  bought  by  someone  representing  inter- 
ests from  outside  of  Canada. 

Farm  tracts  are  being  bought  up  in  large 
amounts.  Foreign  firms  have  also  made  sub- 
stantial purchases  in  the  urban  centres.  The 
Swiss-owned  firm  of  Fidinam  (Ontario)  Ltd., 
for  instance,  controls  a  large  tract  of  land  in 
Norfolk  county  near  the  Nanticoke  generating 
project.  It  was  bought  some  years  ago  with 
the  expectation  that  the  Nanticoke  generating 
complex  would  increase  the  value  of  that 
land.  The  Treasurer  (Mr.  White)  has  frozen 
its  utilization  but  eventually  planning  deci- 
sions will  have  to  be  made  which  will  either 
set  it  aside  for  all  time,  which  is  very  un- 
likely, or  open  it  up  for  development. 

But  these  companies  have  not  confined 
their  acquisitions  to  raw  land.  The  select 
committee  on  economic  and  cultural  afi^airs 
reported  five  months  ago: 

There  is  concern  about  substantial  for- 
eign investment  in  urban  commercial  de- 
velopments, both  new  and  existing.  It  is 
claimed  that  through  market  linkages, 
undue  upward  pressure  on  residential  real 
hyper-investment  of  this  sort  is  putting 
estate  prices  and  shelter  costs. 

The  amount  of  foreign-owned  land  in  central 
Ontario  is  staggering.  The  downtown  Toronto 
block  bounded  by  Elm,  St.  Patrick,  Simcoe 
and  Dundas  streets  is  owned  by  a  corporation 
known  as  DWS  Toronto  Holdings  Ltd., 
which  is  controlled  by  the  Dreyfus  group  of 
New  York. 


MARCH  8,  1974 


87 


A  German  company,  LehndorfF  Manage- 
ment Ltd.,  owns  property  at  360  Bay  St. 
German  interests  also  recently  bought  prop- 
erty on  Don  Mills  Rd.  and  Gateway  Blvd.  in 
East  York. 

EILPRO  Holdings  Ltd.,  a  Swiss  company, 
has  substantial  holdings  in  central  Toronto, 
including  the  block  bounded  by  Yonge,  Wel- 
lington, Scott  and  Front  streets;  property 
fronting  on  Chestnut,  Armoury  and  Centre 
streets;  property  on  the  southwest  corner  of 
Bloor  and  Jarvis  streets;  property  on  the 
south  side  of  Walton  St.,  between  Bay  and 
Yonge  streets.  EILPRO  bought  land  fronting 
on  Bay,  Gerrard  and  Walton  streets  from 
Japanese  interests  about  two  years  ago. 

Besides  its  substantial  acreage  in  Norfolk 
county,  Fidinam  (Ontario)  Ltd.,  a  Swiss  firm, 
owns  or  controls  property  at  the  northeast 
comer  of  Bloor  and  Yonge  streets— that's  the 
Workmen's  Compensation  Board  head  office— 
at  the  northeast  comer  of  University  Ave.  and 
Wellington  St.,  and  on  the  west  side  of 
Yonge  St.  north  of  Davenport  Rd.  Fidinam 
also  controls  the  Park  Plaza  Hotel  at  the 
northwest  comer  of  Bloor  St.  and  Avenue 
Rd.;  land  assemblies  in  the  vicinity  of  the 
northeast  comer  of  Bloor  St.  and  Avenue  Rd.; 
and  most  of  the  block  bounded  by  Queen, 
Victoria,  Richmond  and  Yonge  streets. 

Trizec  Corp.,  controlled  by  Star  (Great 
Britain)  Holdings  Ltd.,  ovras  the  Hyatt  House 
Hotel  and  the  Yorkdale  Shopping  Centre. 

MEPC  Canadian  Properties  Ltd.,  another 
British  company,  owns  the  northeast  comer 
of  Marlborough  and  Yonge  streets.  Hammer- 
son  Properties  of  England  owns  the  south- 
west comer  of  University  Ave.  and  Welling- 
ton St. 

Capital  and  Counties  Real  Estate  of  Eng- 
land acquired  property  on  Dundas  St.  east  of 
University  Ave.  when  it  gained  control  of 
Great  Northern  Capital  Corp. 

Such  extensive  foreign  participation  in  the 
Ontario  land  market  not  only  infringes  on 
our  natural  heritage,  but  also  contributes  to 
higher  shelter  costs  for  the  residents  of  this 
province.  This  type  of  foreign  investment 
does  not  create  jobs,  or  advance  technology. 
It  benefits  only  the  investors.  The  provincial 
government  must  act  promptly  to  restrict 
future  land  purchases  to  residents  of  Canada 
and  Canadian-owned  corporations  or  Cana- 
dian-controlled corporations,  or  an  even 
greater  influx  of  foreign  money  will  further 
inflate  Ontario's  land  prices. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  put  this  to  the  Premier  and 
the  administration  most  seriously,  that  there 
has    always   been   the   feeling  here  that   we 


have  a  wide-open  economy.  I  can  remember 
the  Premier  saying,  "Surely  if  we  have  the 
right  to  buy  properties  such  as  condominiums 
in  Florida,  why  should  we  restrict  the  pur- 
chase of  properties  here  in  Canada  to  foreign 
investors?"  I  would  simply  say  to  you,  sir, 
that  with  our  population  and  our  economic 
viability,  that  if  we  leave  all  of  our  properties 
open  to  the  investment  of  foreign  capital, 
then  we  are  going  to  find  that  this  property 
is  going  to  be  almost  entirely  foreign-owned 
and  controlled  and  that  the  pressures  brought 
by  investments  of  this  type  are  unnaturaUy 
inflating  and  dislocating  the  prices  that  we 
ourselves  must  pay  for  our  own  housing  and 
commercial  investments.  This  is  tme  not  only 
in  the  urban  centres,  but  it  is  equally  tme 
in  our  recreational  centres.  The  time  has 
surely  come  for  us  to  say  to  people  who  are 
not  Canadian,  "You  are  welcome  here  on  a 
lease  basis  only." 

I  think,  on  the  other  hand,  as  far  as  our 
own  residents  are  concerned,  that  they  should 
have  the  right  to  buy  recreation  properties  in 
the  north  where  in  fact  they  are  compatible 
with  the  ecological  and  enviroimiental  plan 
and  programme  for  the  areas  to  be  devel- 
oped. 

We  are  concemed  with  the  encroachment 
in  our  agricultural  areas.  I  have  become  quite 
sensitive,  particularly  to  the  class  1  and  2 
agricultural  land  arguments,  and  I  am  sure 
that  there  is  not  a  government  minister  who 
doesn't  think  about  this  now  whenever  a  pro- 
gramme is  going  to  encroach  on  further 
property  in  the  Province  of  Ontario.  Unfor- 
tunately, we  cannot  freeze  expansion,  although 
some  municipalities  have  attempted  to  do  so 
under  the  direction  of  the  planners  at  the 
provincial  level. 

I  know  of  municipalities  in  my  own  con- 
stituency that  are  proud  of  the  fact  that  no 
serviced  lots  have  been  opened  up  in  two 
years  and  no  severances  granted  in  the  same 
period  of  time.  Perhaps  this  would  be  some- 
thing to  be  proud  of  if  in  fact  we  had 
achieved  zero  population  growth.  But  far  from 
that  fact,  our  population  continues  to  grow, 
although  at  a  lower  rate,  and  immigration  has 
been  reduced,  but  we  still  find  in  manv  com- 
munities where  government  policy  or  lack  of 
policy  has  frozen  development  that  young 
people  embarking  on  the  responsibilities  of 
married  and  family  life,  have  one  alternative 
only,  and  that  is  to  crowd  further  into  facil- 
ities that  are  already  available  or  to  move 
out  of  the  community  into  the  urban  centres 
and  bring  additional  pressures  of  expansion 
there. 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


We  must  realize  that  development  cannot 
be  frozen,  even  though  individuals  and  poli- 
ticians may  from  time  to  time  call  for  that 
as  an  alternative.  We  cannot  put  all  of  the 
growth  and  development  on  the  Canadian 
Shield,  that  area  where  people  seem  to  think 
that  houses  are  going  to  be  set  up  on  the 
rock  so  that  the  farmers  can  continue  to 
grow  food  on  the  good  land.  I  would  hope 
that  the  government  would  return  to  the  con- 
cepts of  the  Toronto-centred  region  and  see 
that  the  Canadian  Shield  is  going  to  have  a 
good  many  incentives  for  further  develop- 
p^ent.  But  we  must  not  for  a  moment  think 
that  the  communities  already  established  in 
th'^'  province  can  be  frozen  at  a  no-growth 
•status.  We  do  have  young  people  who  want 
to  live  in  their  own  community.  They  want 
to  have  a  chance  to  work  there. 

I  will  have  something  more  to  say  about 
the  intrusions  of  government  programmes  on 
class  one  and  two  land  in  a  few  moments,  but 
I  for  one  do  not  believe  development  can  be 
stopped  altogether,  and  anyone  who  preaches 
that  is  surely  being  unjust  and  unfair  and 
unreasonable. 

I  should  say  that  when  we  talk  about  the 
pressures  of  foreign  capital  increasing  the 
prices  of  our  own  land  and  housing  stock, 
we  must  be  aware  that  newly  enriched 
Middle  Eastern  countries  are  already  rumoured 
to  be  buying  land  in  Ontario.  When  the 
'Sheikhs  of  Araby"  see  that  the  billions  of 
dollars  channelling  into  their  treasuries  can 
only  buy  so  many  solid  gold  Cadillacs,  they 
are  going  to  be  looking  for  the  kind  of  in- 
vestments which  in  the  long  run  will  be 
much  more  valuable  than  the  bullion  that 
they  are  now  demanding  in  payment  for  their 
precious  oil,  and  some  of  the  most  valuable 
assets  are,  of  course,  the  real  estate  right 
here  in  Ontario  and  other  parts  of  Canada. 

We  can  see,  Mr,  Speaker,  more  and'  more, 
that  buyers  with  foreign  capital  from  Italy, 
Switzerland,  Germany,  the  Netherlands,  Great 
Britain  and  the  oil-producing  nations,  are 
coming  here  with  absolutely  no  restraints  on 
the  prices  to  be  paid.  If  anything  is  for  sale 
at  any  price  it  will  be  bought,  its  title  trans- 
ferred, and  it  will  then  become  a  real  asset 
as  far  as  the  speculators,  and  particularly  the 
investment  council  of  these  capital-intensive 
countries,  are  concerned. 

Relaxed  Japanese  regulations  for  investors 
in  foreign  land  have  been  in  effect  for  only 
a  few  years.  As  you  are  aware,  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  outflow  of  Japanese  capital  was  carefully 
controlled  for  many  years  at  the  time  when 
the  industry  and  the  development  of  the  in- 
dustrial plant  in  Japan  had  to  be  financed  with 


their  own  resources.  But  now  this  money  is 
rolling  out  of  Japan  and  it  is  coming  into  the 
investment  in  real  estate  in  our  own  com- 
munities. The  recent  devaluation  of  the  Cana- 
dian dollar  in  relation  to  European  and 
Japanese  currencies  is  also  attracting  foreign 
investment  to  Ontario's  real  estate  market 
which,  because  its  value  is  rising  so  fast,  is 
a  better  investment  even  than  gold. 

Restrictions  on  foreign  land  ownership  will 
ease  the  upward  pressure  on  land  prices 
somewhat,  but  tough  measures'  are  also  re- 
quired to  stop  land  speculation  by  Canadians. 
Just  yesterday  the  newly-elected'  president  of 
the  Ontario  Real  Estate  Association  estimated 
that  30  per  cent  of  all  land  transactions  in 
Ontario  involved  speculators.  Land  specula- 
tion in  the  Toronto  area  has  recently  been 
accelerating  at  an  alarming  rate.  A  representa- 
tive of  the  Urban  Development  Institute  esti- 
mated this  week  that  the  total  acreage  of 
assembled  land  aroimd  Metropolitan  Toronto 
has  increased  by  50  per  cent  since  last 
August  as  a  result  of  feverish  speculative 
activity. 

I  am  sure  the  Premier  and  his  advisers  are 
concerned  about  this.  If  you  come  from  a 
rural  area  you  are  aware  that  once  the  farm 
holding  of  a  traditional  farm  family  has  been 
broken,  in  other  words  the  farm  is  sold,  you 
can  almost  guarantee  that  it  will  be  sold 
three  more  times  in  the  next  two  years,  each 
at  a  substantially  inflated  price. 

The  real  estate  agents,  of  course,  are  very 
anxious  to  do  this.  Why  should  they  not  be? 
They  collect  their  commission  on  the  whole 
thing  right  from  the  word  go,  and  this  in 
addition  adds  upward  pressure  to  the  cost  of 
the  property. 

The  attitude  of  those  people  who  either 
have  money  to  invest  or  can  collect,  scrape 
together,  a  down  payment  is  that  in  land 
speculation  they  can't  lose,  there  will  always 
be  somebody  along  within  a  month  of  the 
purchase  offering  them  more  than  they  paid. 

We  are  told  by  builders,  those  developing 
new  communities  in  urban  areas  particularly, 
that  individuals,  if  they  possibly  can,  no 
longer  buy  a  house  for  themselves  and  their 
family,  but  they  will  try  to  buy  five  or  six 
homes  in  a  community  such  as  that.  They  will 
make  a  down  payment,  then  perhaps  try  to 
postpone  the  closing,  and  the  builder  will 
find  that  the  houses  have  been  resold  at  a 
substantial  profit  within  four  to  five  months. 

These  are  the  things  that  must  concern 
us  all  and  surely  must  concern  the  govern- 
ment policy  makers.  The  activity  surely  is  not 
confined  to  Toronto.   The  provincial  govern- 


MARCH  8,  1974 


ment  has  failed  to  develop  a  rational  plan  for 
the  development  and  servicing  of  raw  land. 
Rumours  and  uncertainty  are  fueling  specula- 
tion throughout  Ontario.  The  UDI  representa- 
tive stated  that: 

There  isn't  a  community  in  southern 
Ontario  that  doesn't  have  land  speculation 
going  on  around  it.  Until  the  province 
makes  an  announcement  about  where  the 
next  developments  will  go  the  speculation 
will  continue.  In  the  past  few  weeks  it 
has  gotten  worse.  There  has  never  been 
as  much  speculative  money  around  as  there 
is  now,  and  never  as  much  uninformed 
speculation.  Every  little  town  is  being 
bought  up. 

It  is  true.  In  the  village  of  St.  George,  where 
housing  of  very,  very  moderate  circumstances 
indeed  was  being  traded  between  $10,000 
and  $15,000  no  more  than  18  months  ago, 
it  has  now  sky-rocketed  to  the  point  where 
one  of  these  very  moderate  homes,  indeed  if 
it  comes  on  the  market  and  they  do  so  only 
rarely,  goes  for  $30,000  to  $35,000. 

We  are  not  talking  about  price  controls; 
we  are  talking  about  the  availability  of  ser- 
viced land  and  a  programme  to  build  hous- 
ing so  that  people  in  urban,  and  also  in  rural 
communities,  can  have  an  opportunity  for 
housing  that  is  rationally  associated  with  the 
amount  of  money  available  from  their  own 
employment.  The  government  must  act  im- 
mediately to  bring  this  intolerable  situation 
under  control.  The  unbridled  greed  of  land 
speculators  is  pushing  shelter  costs  out  of 
reach  for  all  but  the  wealthiest  of  our  citi- 
zens. I  don't  think  we  can  expect  people 
trading  in  land  to  say,  "Oh,  my,  that  price 
is  too  high.  I  will  not  take  it."  That  would 
be  an  unnatural  expectation  in  the  extreme. 

The  people  trade  in  land  to  make  a  profit, 
and  they  are  making  tremendous  profits  right 
now.  As  I  drive  into  Toronto  from  my  home 
from  the  west,  I  come  along  much  the  same 
route  followed  by  the  Premier,  at  least  in 
the  last  few  miles.  He  must  be  as  aware  as 
I  am  that  the  farmlands  for  40  miles  around 
this  city  are  largely  abandoned.  The  barns 
are  falling  down,  the  fences  are  in  disrepair 
and  the  fields  are  growing  nothing  but 
golden-rod. 

This  is  because  of  the  uncontrolled  aspects 
of  land  speculation  and  not  because  of  the 
farmers  themselves  who  received  a  good 
price,  took  the  money  in  most  cases  and 
either  retired  if  they  were  elderly  or  took 
the  money  and  bought  viable  farmland  else- 
where. They  were  able  to  build  new  build- 
ings,   transfer    their    stock    and    continue    as 


active  dairy,  beef  and  cash  crop  farmers 
elsewhere  in  the  province.  Some  of  this  best 
land  lies  there  growing  weeds. 

It  must  bring  tears  to  the  eyes  of  the 
Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food,  because 
he  doesn't  like  to  see  it  go  out  of  produc- 
tion. As  a  farmer,  I  think  he  would  like  to 
get  in  there  with  a  big  plough  and  turn  it 
back  into  production  and  make  some  money 
on  it.  I  can't  understand  why  these  lands 
cannot  somehow  be  brought  back  into  viable 
farming  operations.  Believe  me  when  the 
Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  says  that 
he's  concerned  about  and  is  prepared  to 
bring  forward  programmes  requiring  that,  he 
will  get  support  from  this  side,  because  we 
don't  like  the  looks  of  it.  We  believe  it  is 
wasteful  and  we  do  not  believe  that  the 
speculators  should  simply  sit  back  on  their 
hunkers  waiting  until  the  price  is  right. 

This  is  a  matter  that  concerns  all  of  us. 
I  hope  that  we  are  going  to  have  something 
more  than  policy  pronouncements  but  real 
action  in  that  regard.  The  incentive  to  specu- 
late in  land  must  be  removed  by  applying  a 
steep  rate  of  tax  to  these  windfall  gains. 
This  tax  should  apply  to  profits  from  most 
sales  of  raw  land  and  houses  which  are  not 
occupied  by  the  owner,  but  should  not  apply 
to  profits  from  the  sale  of  a  principal  resi- 
dence or  to  profits  from  the  sale  of  an 
owner-occupied  family  farm. 

It  is  not  enough  to  say  that  the  tax  base 
we  presently  have  will  accommodate  it.  I 
believe  it  can  be  used  to  require  that  land 
be  kept  in  production,  and  also  at  least  to 
control  in  the  public  interest  to  some  extent 
the  unbridled  situation  that  we  are  all  so 
much  aware  of.  In  other  words,  the  tax 
should  be  structured  in  such  a  way  as  to 
apply  to  speculators  only  without  penalizing 
other  landowners.  A  tax  on  speculative  land 
profits  can  slow  the  price  rise,  but  in  order 
to  reduce  and  stabilize  housing  costs  in 
Ontario  the  provincial  government  must  en- 
sure that  there  is  always  an  oversupply  of 
serviced  land  available  for  residential  de- 
velopment. 

The  Ontario  Economic  Council  remarked 
a  year  ago  that  by  concentrating  its  efforts 
on  house  building  programmes  instead  of 
land  servicing  the  province  was  "treating  the 
symptoms  and  not  the  disease."  The  Ontario 
Economic  Council  also  noted  that  Ontario 
lacks  "a  planned  programme  of  ensuring  an 
adequate  supply  of  serviced  land  in  the 
correct  places." 

As  an  immediate  step,  the  provincial  gov- 
ernment should  develop  its  own  land  holdings 


90 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


where  they  fit  in  with  the  municipal  official 
plan.  This  would  include,  in  the  case  of 
Ontario  Housing  holdings,  the  3,000  acres 
assembled  in  Waterloo  county  where  it  fits 
in  with  the  official  plans  of  Kitchener- 
Waterloo  and  the  new  community  known  as 
Cambridge,  and  also  the  1,700  acres  at 
Malvern,  where  development  is  beginning.  It 
has  now  progressed,  I  believe,  to  stage  3,  but 
servicing  should  go  forward  on  a  priority 
basis  to  make  these  lands  further  available. 

The  activities  of  the  Ontario  Housing  Corp. 
should  be  expanded  to  encompass  a  land 
servicing  programme  with  the  objective  of 
restoring  balance  to  our  supply-short  land 
market.  After  the  provincial  government  has 
consulted  with  municipalities  in  order  to 
establish  areas  where  residential  development 
is  desirable  and  acceptable,  Ontario  Housing 
should  build  the  necessary  trunk  sei^vices  for 
water  and  sewage  as  a  public  utility.  These 
services  should  be  sold  to  municipalities  in 
much  the  same  way  as  Hydro  sells  electricity. 
The  province  should  guarantee  loans  for 
capital  expenditures  as  it  does  with  Hydro, 
and  Ontario  Housing  Corp.  should  be  re- 
quired to  repay  its  debts  from  the  revenues 
accrued. 

The  cost  to  Ontario  taxpayers  of  such  a 
land  servicing  programme  would  therefore  be 
minimal,  but  housing  prices  would  be  sub- 
stantially reduced.  A  government-run  land 
servicing  programme  would  also  permit  more 
orderly  growth  throughout  the  province.  Spe- 
cifically it  would  allow  the  provincial  govern- 
ment to  decentralize  the  growth  pressures 
which  are  contributing  to  urban  sprawl  in 
southern  Ontario  by  providing  inexpensive 
land  in  eastern  and  northern  Ontario. 

Of  course,  a  co-ordinated  programme  to 
decentralize  growth  must  also  include  ap- 
propriate stimulation  for  industrial  develop- 
ment and  employment  opportunities  in  the 
north  and  the  east.  It  goes  without  saying 
and  it  has  been  said  by  government  repre- 
sentatives on  many  occasions.  But  we  have 
got  to  the  point,  surely,  where  government 
pohcy  must  be  something  more  than  simply 
the  expression  of  pious  hopes.  There  are 
these  lands  held  in  public  ownership  in 
various  parts  of  the  province,  such  as  Brant- 
ford,  Waterloo,  certainly  here  in  Malvern,  and 
with  projects  beginning  elsewhere.  It  is 
surely  time  for  the  government  to  decide  on 
the  development  of  services  for  those  areas 
and  to  proceed  with  making  the  serviced  lots 
available.  If  in  the  Ontario  housing  pro- 
gramme it  is  deemed  necessary  that  the  so- 
called  Home  Ownership  Made  Easy  pro- 
gramme would  apply,  the  government  could 


in  fact  not  only  service  the  land  but  build 
the  houses.  In  most  cases  the  serviced  lots 
should  be  made  available  to  private  enter- 
prise and  individuals  who  want  to  buy  the 
serviced  lot  and  build  their  own  homes. 

Inexpensive  housing  forms  including  mobile 
and  factory-produced  homes  must  be  en- 
couraged. In  five  years  of  experimentation 
with  system  building  of  houses  in  the  United 
States  costs  have  been  reduced  by  36  per  cent 
despite  rising  labour  and  building  material 
prices.  When  I  refer  to  building  material 
prices  we  in  this  House  should  move  to  re- 
duce the  sales  taxation  on  building  materials 
and,  of  course,  the  taxes  levied  at  the 
federal  level  as  well;  seven  per  cent  here,  12 
per  cent  in  Ottawa.  It  would  give  a  sub- 
stantial stimulus  to  the  building  programme 
and,  I  would  trust,  it  would  indicate  a  reduc- 
tion in  the  costs  of  housing  if  these  taxes 
were  moderated  or  removed  or  if,  in  fact,  an 
equivalent  grant  were  made  to  the  builders 
or  purchasers  of  new  homes. 

The  main  source  of  the  saving  is  in  re- 
duced assembly  time  with  regard  to  some  of 
the  new  forms  of  building,  such  as  the 
system  building  that  have  been  used  in 
various  areas  of  the  United  States.  The  stand- 
ard production  methods  and  close  super- 
vision of  mass  production  enable  system 
builders  to  provide  high  quality  housing  at 
low  cost. 

One  of  the  most  impressive  system  build- 
ing programmes  is  in  Akron,  Ohio,  where 
$17,000  two-storey  townhouses  were  renting 
a  few  months  ago  for  from  $47  monthly  for 
a  two-bedroom  unit  to  $54  monthly  for  four 
bedrooms.  That  is  not  a  subsidized  housing 
programme.  The  unions  associated  with  the 
building  programme  have  endorsed  the  pro- 
gramme because  parts  are  produced  in  union 
plants  and  on-site  assembly  is  done  by  union 
workers. 

In  some  areas  where  the  programme  has 
been  attempted  those  people  who  must  do 
the  work  have  objected  because  they  have 
felt  that  it  cut  into  their  own  livelihood,  but 
such  is  not  the  case  under  these  circum- 
stances. 

The  building  codes  of  most  Ontario  cities 
bar  such  housing  not  because  of  structural 
specifications  but  because  of  house  and  lot 
size  restrictions.  Municipalities  demand  over- 
sized lots,  wide  streets  and  highest  quality 
services  because  of  their  heavy  rehance  on 
property  taxes  as  a  souice  of  revenue. 

Low-cost  housing  on  small  lots  means  lower 
property  tax  returns.  Kitchener  has  recently 
relaxed  its  high  standards  on  some  lots  and 


MARCH  8,  1974 


91 


other  municipalities  should  be  encouraged  to 
do  hkewise. 

In  our  party  we  recognize  the  high  accom- 
modation costs  as  a  serious  problem  and  un- 
like the  Conservative  government  we  have  a 
policy  to  solve  that  problem.  The  govern- 
ment's refusal'  to  act  in  the  past  has  pre- 
cipitated' a  crisis  housing  situation  in  this 
province.  Strong  action,  including  restrictions 
on  foreign  investment  in  land,  steep  taxes  on 
speculative  land  profits,  a  government-run 
land  servicing  programme  and  steps  to  reduce 
residential  construction  costs  are  urgently  re- 
quired in  order  to  avoid  further  housing  price 
increases. 

I  would  say  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
housing  price  increases  cannot  be  avoided,  if 
the  plan  put  forward  in  the  Speech  from  the 
Throne  is  the  only  basis  for  government 
action.  The  increase  in  the  amount  of  money 
that  is  available  to  service  land  is  not  suflB- 
cient  to  make  an  impact  in  the  communities 
of  this  province  and  is  substantially  in- 
adequate, in  fact,  to  be  even  anything  more 
than  more  of  the  same.  I  would  say  to  you, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  matter  is  a  principal 
and  priority  concern  to  all  of  us  in  this 
House  during  this  session. 

I  wanted  to  congratulate  the  new  Minister 
of  Housing  on  his  appointment.  I  had  felt 
frankly  that,  being  a  trade  economist  and  a 
tax  expert,  his  usefulness,  if  he  were  to  be 
brought  into  the  cabinet,  might  perhaps  be 
in  the  revenue  area  rather  than  as  Minister 
of  Housing.  He  said  himself  that  he  can't 
drive  a  nail  straight,  but  I  don't  suppose  that 
is  going  to  detract  from  his  applying  in  the 
best  possible  way  the  moneys  made  available 
by  the  Treasury  and,  more  particularly,  from 
applying  the  pohcies  that  are  agreed  upon 
by  this  government.  But  the  best  minister 
caimot  do  anything  if,  in  fact,  the  money  is 
not  available  nor  if  the  principles  behind  the 
policy  are  not  adequate  to  meet  the  needs. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  are  concerned 
about  the  cabinet  changes  that  the  Premier 
announced  just  a  few  days  ago.  We  wish  the 
best  for  the  new  ministers.  We  want  to  ques- 
tion them  as  closely  and  as  strictly  as  we  can 
as  their  policies  are  enunciated.  But  we  look 
at  the  new  Minister  of  the  Environment 
(Mr.  W.  Newman).  A  man  in  his  position  is 
going  to  have  considerable  problem  in  his 
own  constituency.  The-  land  of  Cedarwood'  is 
being  assembled  and  many  of  the  citizens  in 
that  area  feel  that  they  have  been  dealt  with 
unfairly  by  the  government  in  that  hearings 
on  expropriations  have  been  cancelled  by 
order  in  council  or  not  permitted  under  the 
provisions  of  the  statute. 


Pickering  airport  is  being  built  there.  The 
new  Minister  of  the  Environment  is  in  a 
good  position  surely,  if  he  has  the  courage  of 
the  convictions  he  has  stated  so  ably  in  the 
past  that  we  don't  need  an  airport  in  that 
location,  to  say  to  his  colleagues  in  the 
cabinet  that  a  statement  of  policy  from  the 
government  should  go  forward  to  the  govern- 
ment of  Canada  saying,  "We  do  not  want  the 
airport  there.  It  is  the  view  of  this  province 
that  those  plans  should  be  cancelled.  If  we, 
in  fact,  are  going  to  be  meeting  the  long- 
range  requirements  of  the  community  of 
Ontario,  then  the  airport  should  be  moved 
elsewhere." 

You  say  where?  I  would  say  on  to  the 
Canadian  Shield.  It  does  not  have  to  go  in 
any  location  where  it  is  going  to  be  that  close 
to  this  particular  centre,  because  I  don't  be- 
lieve we  are  going  to  need  its  facilities  until 
1985  or  maybe  1990.  I  believe  that  the  air- 
port should  be  cancelled  and  so  does  the 
Minister  of  the  Environment.  Why  does  not 
the  government,  following  the  statements 
made  by  its  own  minister  in  his  former 
private  member's  capacity,  simply  tell  the 
government  of  Canada  that  it  does  not  meet 
the  needs  of  this  province  and  see  that  it  is 
adjusted  accordingly? 

While  there  has  been  some  land  assembly 
go  forward,  there  appears  to  have  been  some- 
thing less  than  a  total  commitment  to  the 
Pickering  site.  The  complaints  about  it  are 
valid  and  come  from  many  sources.  It  is 
true  —  and  the  Prime  Minister  said  it  in 
Toronto  just  a  few  days  ago  —  that  if  one 
cancels  Pickering  it  is  going  to  put  additional 
pressures  on  Malton.  That  is  one  of  the 
things  that  must  be  taken  realistically  into 
consid^eration.  By  so  saying,  I  mean  to  meet 
the  needs  of  the  air  transportation  require- 
ments, but  also  politically,  because  the  people 
living  around  Malton  get  aw^ly  sick  of 
hearing  those  planes  and  some  of  the  low- 
flying  ones  may  even  fly  up  as  far  as  Bramp- 
ton. 

iHon.  Mr.  Davis:  Ask  the  member  for 
Etobicoke  (Mr,  Braithwaite)  what  he  thinks 
about  an  expansion  there. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  We  are  not  talking  about 
an  expansion  there.  We  are  saying  that  that 
can  serve  the  needs  of  the  community  until 
1980  to  1985,  perhaps  to  1990. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Without  an  expansion? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Now  is  the  time  to  can- 
cel the  new  Pickering  airport  and  see  that 
it  is  located  further  from  Toronto,  vdthout 
using  class  1  and  2  land. 


92 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  member's  colleague 
is  laughing. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  There  is  no  possible  way 
that  the  Premier  can  have  it  both  ways,  I 
am  simply  pointing  out  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  problem  that  his  own  new  Minister  of 
the  Environment  is  going  to  have  in  meeting 
the  problems  that  he  finds  in  his  own  con- 
stituency. He  has  got  Cedarwood,  the  Pick- 
ering airport,  enormous  new  garbage  dumps, 
the  proposal  for  Highway  407,  the  new  sew- 
ers and  service  road  that  are  going  to  come 
up  and  angle  in  to  service  the  north  part 
of  the  Metro  area  —  all  right  in  the  home 
farming  fields  of  the  Minister  of  the  Environ- 
ment. 

He  has  problems,  there  is  no  doubt  about 
it.  He  is  an  honourable  man  and  a  man 
with  ability,  but  the  Premier  has  given  him 
an  assignment  which  is  going  to  crack  him 
up.  He  will  not  be  able  to  continue  to 
represent  his  own  people  white  imposing  the 
environmental  threats  in  his  own  community 
under  those  circumstances.  There  is  going 
to  have  to  be  a  change  in  policy  and  I  would 
suggest  to  you  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  Premier 
should  announce  a  change  in  policy  in  con- 
nection with  the  airport. 

Now,  the  Premier  is  prepared'  to  make 
policy  changes.  He  has  made  that  clear.  As 
a  matter  or  fact,  I  am  wondering  what  he 
is  going  to  do  with  the  situations  that  come 
in  upon  him  on  the  development  of  new 
communities  in  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

I  have  talked  about  this  already  for  a 
moment,  but  I  would  like  to  say  this  that  in 
Norfolk  county  where  we  have  imposed  a 
new  regional  government,  the  decision  has 
been  made  by  the  experts  advising  the  Treas- 
urer that  a  large  new  community  with  a 
population  of  250,000  is  going  to  be  required 
in  what  is  now  callted  the  city  of  Nanticoke; 
and  yet  the  Treasurer  has  said  that  he  is 
going  to  demand  the  right  to  make  the 
decision  on  its  location,  but  he  hasn't  made 
the  decision  on  its  location. 

Now,  I  just  ask  you  to  consider,  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  dislocation  that  brings  to  the 
land  market  of  the  Norfolk  and  Haldimand 
area,  that  the  land  is  being  optioned  at  ever 
increasing  and  spiralling  rates,  the  Treasurer 
has  frozen  all  the  land,  so  that  it  is  very 
difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  get  a  severance 
and  a  building  permit.  The  most  minor 
building  permit  must  be  approved  from  the 
Treasurer's  office.  That's  the  situation  we  are 
in. 

It  has  been  that  way  now  for  well  over 
a  year  and  the  time  surely  has  come  when 


we  have  had  a  sufficient,  it's  not  a  cooling 
off  period  because  things  have  heated  up, 
but  a  sufficient  period  of  time  for  the  Treas- 
urer and  his  planners,  and  he  designates 
himself  as  the  chief  planner  for  the  province, 
to  make  a  decision  on  those  areas;  and  there 
have  been  resolutions  from  the  local  councils 
calling  for  the  decision  to  be  made. 

ilf  the  Treasurer  decided  in  his  wisdom 
that  it  would  be  better  that  the  decision  be 
made  by  the  local  people,  then'  let  him  so 
announce  and  indicate  to  the  local  authori- 
ties that  their  decision,  after  suflBcient  con- 
sultation with  the  experts  available  to  them, 
must  be  made  within  a  certain  period  of 
time.  But  we  cannot  continue  to  delay,  we 
cannot  continue  to  hold  large  parcels  of  land 
in  the  name  of  Ontario  Housing,  without 
development,  in  communities  where  serviced 
land  is  in  short  supply.  It  is  obvious  that  the 
government  policy  in  this  regard  is  com- 
pletely inadequate. 

Now,  another  new  cabinet  minister  is  the 
former  parliamentary  assistant  to  the  Trea- 
surer, who  is  now  the  Minister  of  Revenue 
(Mr,  Meen).  Probably  this  minister  is  more 
of  an  authority  on  the  intricacies  of  regional 
government  than  any  one  now  in  the  Legis- 
lature. It  seems  to  me  that  to  direct  his 
abilities  into  the  Ministry  of  Revenue  is  a 
strange  decision  indeed;  it  seems  surely  that 
with  regional  governments  just  now  coming 
into  operation  in  various  parts  of  the  prov- 
ince, it  wouW  have  been  a  much  more  effec- 
tive decision  indeed  if  this  member,  if  he 
was  going  to  be  taken  into  the  cabinet  at 
all,  would  have  had  some  general  supervisory 
responsibility  pertaining  to  these  regions. 

This  is  a  matter  that  is  difiBcult  to  explain. 
He  becomes  Minister  of  Revenue,  unless  per- 
haps that  is  a  training  ground  for  the 
Treasurership  of  the  province,  which  we  are 
told  is  going  to  be  vacated  by  the  present 
Treasurer  some  time  in  the  not  too  distant 
future.  The  situation  under  those  circum- 
stances might  be  different  except  for  this, 
that  during  the  last  two  years,  since  the 
report  of  the  Committee  on  Government 
Productivity  was  accepted,  the  Treasurer  has 
been  also  the  minister  of  municipal  affairs, 
but  in  the  recent  changes  the  member  for— 

Hon.  F.  Guindon  (Minister  of  Labour): 
Grenville-Dundas . 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  For  Grenville-Dundas 
(Mr.  Irvine),  was  designated  Minister  without 
Portfolio  with  special  responsibilities  for 
municipal  affairs.  In  other  words,  we  are 
moving    once    again    towards    a    ministry    of 


MARCH  8,  1974 


93 


municipal  affairs  and  a  very  proper  move  that 
is,  without  the  Premier  making  the  decision 
that  in  fact  the  recommendations  of  the 
Committee  on  Government  Productivity  were 
wrong.  They  have  been  inappropriate  in  our 
experience  of  two  years'  association  with 
policy  ministers  and  the  work  they  are  sup- 
posed to  do.  The  policy  minister  experiment 
has  been  a  failure  and  this  is  apparent  in 
decisions  made  by  the  Premier  pertaining  to 
the  changes  that  have  come  about. 

So  it  seems,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  cabinet 
changes  were  made  only  for  political  pur- 
poses, to  remove  from  the  Premier  pressure 
applied  by  the  cabinet  itself,  through  the 
conflicts  of  interest,  and  the  awarding  of 
contracts  without  tender— the  scandals  asso- 
ciated with  the  decisions  made  by  cabinet 
ministers.  It  seems  that  somehow  or  other 
the  Premier  would  try  to  show  that  he  had 
a  new  group  of  people  who  didn't  do  things 
like  that. 

Unfortunately,  it  appears  that  he  is  sticking 
with  the  concepts  that  have  made  it  difficult 
if  not  impossible  for  the  cabinet  to  make 
the  kinds  of  decisions  that  are  necessary.  So 
he  simply  goes  on  with  the  political  exi- 
gencies that  we  were  treated  to  in  the  Speech 
from  the  Throne.  For  example,  his  sudden 
interest  in  northern  affairs. 

Along  with  his  report  from  his  polling 
experts  that  he  was  down  to  28  per  cent  in 
the  support  of  the  people  of  Ontario,  they 
must  have  told  him  that  he  was  dead  in  the 
north  and  that  while  he  has  been  steadily 
losing  support  for  many  years  there,  it  looks 
now  as  if  the  support  is  down  to  rock  bottom. 
So  you  can't  blame  him  for  making  an  efi^ort 
to  attract  once  again  interest  of  the  taxpayers, 
the  thinking  citizens  of  the  north. 

You  know,  when  you  travel  up  in  the 
north,  the  first  question  you  are  asked  is, 
"What  do  you  think  about  a  separate  prov- 
ince up  here?"  I  think  the  idea  is  a  bad  one, 
but  it  indicates  clearly  the  alienation  of  the 
people  living  in  that  part  of  the  province 
who  think  they  have  been  forgotten  by  big 
government  at  Queen's  Park,  that  their  de- 
cisions are  dictated  from  the  offices  and  the 
bureaucracy  down  here. 

So  what  did  he  do?  The  Speech  from  the 
Throne  calls  for  a  feasibility  and  engineering 
study  for  a  road  link  to  James  Bay  through 
Moosonee.  The  Brunelle  highway. 

An  hon.  member:  To  Moonbeam? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Since  the  minister  is 
applauding  so  strenuously,  1  have  a  feeling 
that  it  really  doesn't  matter  what  the  feas- 


ibility study  says.  If  the  member  for  Coch- 
rane North  (Mr.  Brunelle)  stays  in  the 
cabinet,  they  are  going  to  get  the  road. 

Hon.  R.  Brunelle  (Minister  of  Community 
and  Social  Services):  That's  right.  The  study 
is  not  necessary  because  we  know  right  now 
it  is  justified. 

Mr.  G.  Dixon  ( Dovercourt ) :  Tell  them, 
Rene. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  am  sure  the  Premier 
consulted  with  the  Minister  of  Community 
and  Social  Services  and  the  Premier,  in  his 
good  judgement,  thought  at  least  they  should 
look  into  the  feasibility  of  it. 

Mr.  Good:  Just  for  the  publicity  aspects. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  nice  thing  about  it 
is  that  there  are  so  few  residents  in  Moosonee 
that  the  politics  of  it  don't  necessarily  in- 
trude. The  people  up  there  undoubtedly  want 
a  road  and  they  want  to  be  able  to  get  out 
in  some  way  other  than  on  the  Polar  Bear 
Express,  which  is  usually  crowded  with  poli- 
ticians going  up  there  to  see  what  they  are 
doing  in  Moosonee  this  week. 

Mr.  B.  Newman  ( Windsor- Walkerville): 
With  their  free  passes. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  With  their  free  passes, 
right.  And  the  only  alternative  is  to  phone 
up  the  member  for  Cochrane  North  and  see 
if  they  can  get  on  the  government  plane  or 
to  borrow  somebody's  snowshoes. 

The  road  link  in  my  view  is  a  reasonable 
sort  of  thing  and  I  regret  very  much  the 
fact  that  in  the  future  it  means  that  prob- 
ably we  won't  have  to  depend  on  the  Polar 
Bear  Express  as  much  as  we  have,  because 
some  of  my  more  enlightening  experiences 
in  politics  have  been  associated  with  travel 
on  that  train  as  we  went  through  north- 
eastern Ontario  to  talk  with  municipal  offi- 
cials and  other  experts  as  to  what  the  future 
might  hold  for  that  great  part  of  Ontario. 

The  second  point  is  the  decision  has  been 
made  to  investigate  the  rebuilding  and  the 
widening  of  Highway  17  between  Sault  Ste. 
Marie  and  Sudbury.  When  the  announce- 
ment of  the  new  minister  of  highways  was 
made,  I  felt  that  the  government  had  said 
among  themselves,  "Well,  nobody  down 
here  wants  roads,  so  we  might  as  well  spend 
the  money  in  the  north."  I  think  that  is  a 
great  idea.  The  idea  of  improving  road  trans- 
portation in  northern  Ontario  is  obviously 
not  going  to  solve  all  the  northerners'  prob- 


94 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


lems,  but  I  would  suggest  to  you  very  spe- 
cifically, Mr.  Speaker,  that  it  is  going  to 
take  more  than  the  widening  of  Highway  17 
and  ensconcing  the  minister  of  highways  in 
Sault  Ste.  Marie  to  convince  the  northerners 
of  the  good  faith  of  this  government.  After 
all  the  promises  made  at  the  time  of  elections 
and  the  breaking  of  the  promises  at  the 
time  of  the  distribution  of  the  highways 
budget,  they  are  going  to  have  to  see  the 
concrete,  not  just  the  surveyors.  They  are 
going  to  have  to  see  the  concrete  before  it 
can  be  believed. 

I  would  say  to  the  government  quite  spe- 
cifically that  it  might  as  well  make  the  com- 
mitment now,  as  I  really  think  is  necessary, 
to  make  Highway  11  four  lanes  wide  all  the 
way  to  North  Bay;  to  make  Highway  69  four 
lanes  wide  to  Sudbury  and  then  on  to  the 
Soo.  Anything  less  than  that  is  not  going  to 
meet  the  needs  of  that  expanding  part  of 
the  north.  I  am  not  quite  prepared  to  say 
that  the  ministry  is  going  to  have  to  make 
it  four  lanes  around  the  top  of  Lake  Supe- 
rior, although  I  suppose  some  day,  that  may 
come.  I  hope  it  does  not;  I  think  it  would 
be  substantially  regrettable.  I  spent  some 
years  living  in  Sault  Ste.  Marie  and  I  could 
never  understand  why,  when  one  went  over 
to  Michigan,  there  were  good  road  travel 
links  to  the  southern  part  of  that  state  but 
if  one  decided  to  travel  in  Canada  one 
would  have  to  get  in  line  behind  the  trailers 
and  the  trucks  along  Highway  17  and  make 
one's  way  in  very  dangerous  driving  situa- 
tions down  into  the  southern  and  eastern  part 
of  the  province. 

The  northerners,  of  course,  while  they 
want  good  road  links  to  the  southern  and 
eastern  part  of  the  province  are  just  as  con- 
cerned with  good  road  and  transportation 
links  between  northern  centres.  That  is  surely 
where  the  initiative  of  the  new  Minister  of 
Transportation  and  Communications  (Mr. 
Rhodes)   must  be  brought  to  bear  as  well. 

So  we  go  on  with  the  promises  for  the 
north.  Four  more  communities  in  northwest- 
em  Ontario  will  receive  air  services.  Good. 
I  think  norOntair  has  been  a  good  experi- 
ment. I  haven't  had  the  opportunity  to  fly 
the  line  of  the  purple  goose— is  that  it?  I 
think  that  is  it  —  bat  it  seems  to  me  that 
the  Twin  Otters  are  excellent  planes  and 
that  the  future  of  quick  communications  be- 
tween the  northern  towns  is  going  to  rest 
on  their  utilization. 

On  improvement  of  certain  existing  air- 
ports I  hope  the  minister  is  going  to  do 
something  with  the  one  in  Geraldton.  I  don't 


know  whether  or  not  the  ministers  plane 
gets  down  there  regularly  but  obviously  that 
is  one  of  the  communities  which  should  be 
treated  to  expanded  facilities.  I  think  it 
would  have  been  better  if  the  communities 
which  were  going  to  be  served  under  this 
programme  had  been  specifically  named  in 
the  Speech  from  the  Throne. 

Studies  regarding  the  establishment  of  a 
port  facility  in  the  James  Bay  area;  that  is 
interesting.  In  the  long  run  the  building  of 
the  ONR  or,  as  it  was  then  called,  the 
Timiskaming  and  Nothem  Ontario  Railroad 
—is  that  the  correct  name?— was  to  give  us 
a  salt  water  or  a  sea  water  outlet  or  seaport 
for  this  province.  Actually  it  was  extremely 
disappointing  right  from  the  start.  The  min- 
ister is  aware  of  the  shallowness  of  James 
Bay  and  the  area  of  Hudson  Bay  most 
readily  accessible  so  I  don't  know  whether 
this  feasibility  study  means  building  a  wharf 
six  miles  long  or  doing  dredging  to  bring 
the  ocean  boats  right  up  into  Moosonee  or 
what  it  is.  The  feasibility  study  has  been 
done  before,  admittedly  when  technology 
was  not  quite  so  far  advanced. 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  That  was  for  Moosonee 
itself.  The  intention  is  to  go  further  north 
into  deeper  water. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  idea  of  having  a 
seaport  here  is  an  interesting  one  and  one 
that  we  will  follow  with  a  great  deal  of 
interest. 

The  other  major  statement  was  a  power 
line  to  Moosonee.  Electricity  comes  within 
200  miles  of  it  now,  I  believe,  the  last  time 
we  were  up  there.  Is  that  not  correct? 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  About  150  miles,  along 
the  rapids. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That  should  not  be  a 
serious  problem,  indeed,  in  the  community 
which  we  hope  is  going  to  grow  and  expand 
as  it  serves  a  larger  and  larger  area  and  will 
have  the  benefits  of  a  good  power  source. 

On  local  autonomy,  northern  communities 
will  have  the  opportunity  to  establish  local 
community  councils.  In  other  words,  some  of 
the  friends  of  the  government,  who  have 
been  chairmen  of  the  improvement  districts 
without  benefit  of  election  through  all  these 
years,  may  find  themselves  subject  more 
directly  to  the  wishes  of  the  people  in  the 
communities  they  have  been  serving  in  their 
own  inimitable  styles  over  these  many  years. 

Mr.  Good:  Does  that  include  Moosonee? 


MARCH  8,  1974 


95 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  don't  know  whether  it 
includes  Moosoonee;  I  presume  that  it  would. 
It  will  include  White  River  and  many  other 
communities  which  we  have  talked  about 
from  time  to  time. 

The  government  has  said  "Yes,  that's  what 
we  are  going  to  do  for  the  north.  We  are 
going  to  build  some  roads.  We  are  going  to 
study  the  feasibility  of  certain  other  pro- 
grammes. We  are  going  to  improve  a  couple 
of  airports.  We  are  going  to  expand  some 
money  to  see  that  the  airplanes  wall  get  into 
four  more  towns." 

I  don't  think  that  will  be  suflBcient.  Ap- 
pointing a  minister  of  highways  from  the 
north  might,  in  fact,  improve  the  situation 
quite  a  bit  because  I  have  a  feeling  we  are 
going  to  see  the  earthmovers  on  Highway  17. 
I'm  not  so  sure  that  is  going  to  convince  the 
people  in  the  north  that  they  can  look  once 
again  with  some  confidence  to  the  Conserva- 
tives because  I  believe  the  Conservative 
Party  has  lost  any  right  to  the  confidence  of 
the  northerners  after  all  these  years. 

^fter  all,  they  have  not  taken  the  steps, 
other  than  by  way  of  changing  the  name,  to 
indicate  that  the  Northern  Ontario  Develop- 
ment Corp.  is  going  to  have  an  independent 
stance.  We.  as  Liberals,  believe  that  on  the 
board  of  the  NODC  should  be  all  of  the 
elected  members  from  the  north.  The  former 
Premier  used  to  criticize  me  and  say,  "You 
are  setting  up  a  northern  parliament.  You 
are  a  separatist."  Of  course,  I  refect  that. 
I  simply  say  that  in  the  north,  probably  more 
than  in  any  other  place,  there  is  the  feeling 
that  when  a  member  is  elected  he  has 
something  more  to  do  than  simply  serve  time 
and  aooloqfize,  in  the  case  of  the  Conserva- 
tives, for  the  government's  inactivity. 

I  would  like  to  see  the  board  of  NODC 
composed  basically  of  the  elected  members 
without  regard  to  their  political  party.  If  the 
government  wanted,  through  its  undoubted 
rights  by  the  Lieutenant  Governor's  order  in 
council  appointment,  to  add  to  it  certain 
representatives  of  the  community  otherwise 
I  would  have  no  objection.  Only  if  it  does 
that  can  NODC  be  seen  to  have  a  stance  and 
status  independent  of  the  experts  who  are 
usually  seconded  from  Bay  St.  when  they  are 
looking  for  a  job  and  pressure  comes  on  them, 
perhaps  unduly,  in  the  ordinary  course  of 
their  careers. 

I  think,  further,  that  the  government  should 
make  the  definite  commitment  to  move  the 
head  office  establishment  of  at  least  the 
Ministry  of  Natural  Resources  out  of  Toronto 
and   up   to   the  north.   This,   more  than  any 


thing  else,  would  be  an  indication  of  good 
faith— that  the  ministry  which  deals  almost 
more  than  any  other-I  would  say  more  than 
any  other-with  northern  affairs  is  going  to 
have  its  head  office  there.  After  all,  I  under- 
stand the  minister  has  at  his  disposal  48 
planes,  probably  more  than  that  now;  all  the 
planes,  in  fact,  which  are  not  in  use  by 
other  people  who  have  access  to  them.  It 
would  enable  the  minister  to  come  down  for 
whatever  is  necessary,  to  attend  cabinet  meet- 
ings or  whathaveyou  here. 

The  establishment  of  the  ministry  must 
be  in  the  north.  I  think  there  should  be 
something  more  than  an  ad  hoc  paving  pro- 
gramme indicating  what  the  basis  of  the 
government's  policy  is  in  communication. 
There  should  be  a  reference  to  Highway  11 
to  North  Bay,  and  69  to  Sudbury,  just 
as  there  was  to  Highway  17  from  Sudbury 
to  Sault  Ste.  Marie.  The  government  could 
put  a  reasonable  timetable  on  it  and  say  there 
is  going  to  be  a  commitment  of  a  certain 
percentage  of  the  highway's  budget  so  that 
the  people  in  the  north  know  it  means 
business. 

Siirely  it  is  not  going  to  be  the  same  as  it 
has  been  in  eastern  Ontario  where  one  gets 
the  commitments  and  the  promises,  election 
after  election,  about  road  building.  At  one 
stage  the  Conservatives  even  appointed 
George  Gomme,  an  easterner,  as  minister  of 
highways  and  the  people  in  the  east  thought, 
'Now  we  will  get  our  roads."  But  no,  the 
road's  were  not  built.  The  surveyors  went 
out  one  more  time;  the  flags  were  put  up; 
the  people  found,  as  they  were  driving  in 
the  summer,  that  they  had  to  be  careful  be- 
cause there  were  so  many  surveyors  around 
there  that  the  usefulness  of  the  highways  was 
substantially  reduced. 

Now  we  find  that  the  alternative  of  17 
down  there  is  not  going  on  that  alignment 
at  all;  it  is  going  on  a  completely  new  align- 
ment and'  very  properly  so.  The  government 
is  going  to  build  a  httle  bit  more  of  it  and 
I  have  a  feeling  that  when  we  get  to  elec- 
tion year  it  could  be  that  the  Minister  of 
Labour  and  maybe  the  Minister  of  Housing 
and  the  Premier  himself  will  go  down  and 
cut  a  ribbon  opening  yet  a  few  more  miles. 
One  might  even  be  able  to  drive  from  Ottawa 
right  through  to  the  Quebec  border,  but 
that  remains  to  be  seen. 

I  just  say,  to  my  regret,  that  sort  thing 
seems  to  have  worked  in  eastern  Ontario 
until  now  but  it  is  not  going  to  work  again. 
The  government  is  going  to  get  the  surprise 
of  its  life  when  it  actually  opens  the  road 
and  finds  that  the  people  in  eastern  Ontario 


96 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


are  voting,  for  the  first  time  in  a  lone  time, 
against  the  Tories  and  for  the  Liberal  alter- 
native. 

The  same  is  true  in  the  north. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  And  the  same  is  true 
in  the  north.  It  will  not  be  enough  even  for 
the  new  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Com- 
munications to  go  up  there  and  put  the 
flags  in  the  ground  and  hire  the  surveyors 
to  go  up  and  down  Highway  17. 

Mr.  J.  H.  Jessiman  (Fort  William):  Don't 
hold  your  breath. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  notice  that  the  mem- 
ber for  Fort  William  is  joining  in  the  debate. 
There  have  been  no  specific  promises  about 
new  roads  up  there  but,  of  course,  most  of 
the  people  in  his  area  I  guess  are  content 
that  their  member  has  been  made  chairman 
of  the  Ontario  Northland  Railway.  Maybe 
they  feel  that  that  is  sufiicient  recognition. 
But  I'll  tell  him  this,  that  being  chairman 
of  the  Ontario  Northland  Railway  is  not 
going  to  save  the  political  bacon  of  either 
the  chairman  or  the  Conservative  Party  in 
northwestern  Ontario. 

A  very  case  in  point  came  forward  yester- 
day. Sure  we  are  delighted  that  a  new  mill 
is  going  to  be  located,  not  in  the  hon.  mem- 
ber's riding,  of  course,  which  is  largely  an 
urban  riding,  but  up  there  in  Kenora  where 
the  Minister  of  Natural  Resources  (Mr. 
Bemier)  is  more  and  more  considering  it 
to  be  his  private  fiefdom.  We  can't  help 
but  remember  that  the  same  company  that  is 
expanding  to  the  tune  of  what?— $250  million 
—  is  the  one  which  under  government  super- 
vision was  permitted  to  pollute  the  whole 
Wabigoon  river  system  and  the  English 
river  system  in  such  a  way  that  it  wiM  never 
be  cleaned  up.  There  will  never  be  the 
opportunity  for  sport  fishing  there  and  to 
eat  the  fish.  The  Indians  living  in  the  area 
have  had  either  to  be  moved  off  or  be 
given  permanent  food  payments  so  that  they 
would  not  eat  the  fish.  Almost  every  tourist 
outfitter  in  the  Wabigoon  and  English  river 
system  has  either  moved  out  or  gone  broke 
because  sport  fishing  is  no  longer  permitted. 
Now  thats  the  government  record  in  north- 
western Ontario!    This  is  the  situation. 

The  chairman  of  the  ONR  was  in  the  news 
just  a  few  weeks  ago.  He  had  sold  a  parcel 
of  land  to  Ontario  Housing  and  made  a  large 
profit  on  the  transference  of  that  property. 
I  know  the  property  well.  I  know  that  the 
chairman    of   the    ONR    did   business    there. 


As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  have  rented  a  car  on 
one  occasion  from  his  very  business  premises. 
But  for  the  local- 
Mr.  Jessiman:  On  a  point  of  privilege,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Let  the  member  wait 
until  I  have  finished  before  he  gets  riled. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  was  going  to  say  he  didn't 
want  to  sell  it  to  the  OHC. 

Mr.  Jessiman:  I  would  just  like  to  correct 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  in  the  state- 
ment that  he  just  made  that  I  had  sold  the 
property  to  the  Ontario  Housing,  which  is 
a  complete  and  utter  lie,  and  he  knows  it  to 
be  so.  I  sold  the  property  to  an  individual 
in  the  north  riding. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  I  think  a 
better  choice  of  words  could  have  been 
used. 

Mr.  Jessiman:  And  I'd  like  him  to  retract 
that  statement  right  now. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  was  just  an  error. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please.  I  think  the 
hon.  member  should  change  that  one  word 
in  his  protest. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

iMr.  Good:  He  is  talking  to  the  member 
for  Fort  William.  He  used  an  intermediary 
between  him  and  the  OHC. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I'm  talking  to  the  member 
for  Fort  William.  I  think  a  better  choice  of 
words  could  have  been  used.  Would  you  do 
so,  please? 

Mr.  Jessiman:  May  I  say  it  is  an  untruth 
then,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Well,  let's  look  at  the 
situation.  The  land  that  the  hon.  member 
who  is  objecting  so  strenuously  owned  is 
now  in  the  hands  of  Ontario  Housing  Corp. 
Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  it  is  not.  They  backed 
out  on  him. 

Mr.  Jessiman:  On  a  point  of  privilege,  Mr. 
Speaker,  possibly  the  Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion should  get  his  facts  straight,  which  he 
seldom  does. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  All  right.  Surely,  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  point  is  this:  that  the  member 


MARCH  8,  1974 


97 


for   Port   Arthur— I   mean   Fort   William,   the 
member  for  Port  Arthur  is  another  person- 
Mr.  Lewis:   He  is  not  a  land  speculator. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  —and  I  was  talking 
about  him  earlier— the  member,  as  chairman 
of  the  Ontario  Northland  Railway,  has  a 
responsibility  surely  to  concern  himself  with 
the  development  of  northwestern  Ontario. 
He's  got  to  concern  himself  even  further 
with  the  pollution  record  of  the  government 
that  he  is  supporting.  Surely  as  a  member 
as  well  he's  got  to  concern  himself  with 
unconscionable  land  profits  that  he  himself 
in  the  land  business  in  the  area  apparently 
has  been  making.  How  can  he  continue  to 
expect  to  command  the  support  of  the  tax- 
payers and  the  thinking  citizens  in  his  own 
area? 

I'm  simply  saying  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  in  northwestern  Ontario,  as  in  north- 
eastern Ontario  and  the  eastern  part  of  the 
province,  no  amount  of  government  promises 
of  the  typ2  that  have  been  put  to  use  in  this 
speech  is  going  to  save  the  political  bacon 
of  the  Conservative  Party. 

The  people  have  lost  confidence  in  the 
party  and  in  their  representatives  in  those 
areas.  A  few  more  miles  of  road  might  have 
done  it  back  in  1963,  1959  or  in  1955;  but 
it  won't  do  it  any  more.  I  am  putting  to  the 
government  a  specific  alternative  that  it  is 
up  to  them  to  make  a  clear  commitment  as 
to  what  they  are  going  to  do  for  transporta- 
tion,  road  transportation  and  otherwise. 

Let's  have  a  commitment  on  Highway  69, 
Highway  11  and  Highway  17;  let's  have  a 
commitment  as  to  which  communities  are 
going  to  be  served  by  the  expanding  services 
of  norOntair.  Why,  surely,  are  we  not  using 
the  facilities  that  are  presently  government- 
owned  to  equalize  the  cost  of  living  in  the 
north? 

Before  the  last  election  they  equalized  the 
cost  of  beer.  The  time  surely  has  come  when, 
as  a  matter  of  policy,  the  government  says 
that  it  is  going  to  provide  the  same  cost  of 
living  for  the  necessities  as  are  experienced 
in  other  parts  of  the  province,  and  that  as 
a  matter  of  policy  we  must  surely  remove 
that  invisible  wall  that  separates  die  north- 
ern part  of  the  province  from  the  rest  of 
Ontario;  that  they  must  not  feel  alienated 
and  that  government  policy  has  been  sub- 
stantially inadequate  in  this  regard,  as  it  has 
been  in  others. 

Well-it  is  20  after  12-Mr.  Speaker,  I 
want  to  deal  quite  specifically  with  the  mat- 
ter of  regional  government  as  we  are  expe- 


riencing it  following  the  passage  of  certain 
statutes  a  year  ago  and  three  years  ago. 
The  concern  with  the  cost  of  living  is  directly 
related  to  the  cost  of  government  program- 
mes, and  you  are  aware,  Mr.  Speaker,  living 
near  the  location  of  a  newly  created  regional 
government  programme,  that  it  doesn't  take 
long  for  the  spending  machines  to  go  into 
operation. 

I  would  just  like  to  speak  briefly  about 
what  our  experience  in  regional  government 
costs  has  been.  In  Ottawa-Carleton  the  cost 
of  running  the  cities,  villages  and  townships 
in  1968,  the  year  before  regional  government 
was  imposed,  was  $59.5  million.  In  1969, 
with  regional  government  just  having  been 
started,  costs  increased  by  36  per  cent  in  one 
year  to  $81.3  milllion. 

When  regional  government  was  intro- 
duced to  Niagara  in  1970,  the  increase  in 
municipal  government  spending  was  even 
steeper.  The  expenditures  grew  by  45  per 
cent,  from  $39  million  to  $56  million  in  the 
very  first  year.  Increases  in  the  cost  of  the 
regional  portion  of  municipal  government  in 
Niagara  have  continued  since  1970.  In  the 
four  years  of  regional  government  in  Niagara 
the  annual  cost  of  operating  the  regional 
municipality,  exclusive  of  the  local  govern- 
ments, has  jumped  85.3  per  cent,  from  $22 
million  to  $41  million.  In  Ottawa-Carleton, 
the  regional  municipality  spending  has  risen 
88  per  cent  in  five  years. 

I  thought  it  was  important  that  I  put  those 
figures  before  you,  sir,  because  we  find  in 
the  case  of  Haldimand-Norfolk,  where 
regional  government  was  imposed  by  Act  of 
this  Legislature  just  a  few  months  ago  and 
where  the  regional  government  will  take  its 
first  authority  within  a  few  weeks,  that  al- 
ready there  have  been  expensive  decisions 
made. 

For  example,  the  regional  council  has 
not  been  able  to  decide  on  a  site  for  the 
seat  of  government.  Half  of  the  government 
will  be  located  in  Cayuga,  formerly  in  Haldi- 
mand  county,  and  the  other  half  in  Simcoe, 
that  is  the  former  county  seat  of  the  county 
of  Norfolk.  It  seems  to  me  this  is  typical  of 
the  problems  of  the  imposition  of  the  new 
type  of  government.  Certainly  the  govern- 
ment has  given  the  decision  to  the  locally 
elected  regional  council  as  to  where  the 
capital  will  be,  and  they  have  made  a  deci- 
sion that  I  suppose  was  forced  upon  them 
by  the  views  of  the  two  separate  communi- 
ties, and  that  is  to  have  two  capitals. 

Now  the  only  people  who  are  going  to 
benefit  from  this  will  be  the  people  who  are 


98 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


collecting  the  bills  for  Bell  Canada.  It  is 
typical  of  what  has  happened  in  other 
regional  government  programmes.  The  costs 
escalate  rapidly  and  out  of  all  control. 

The  figures  that  I  have  put  before  mem- 
bers, resulting  from  an  inquiry  into  these 
costs  in  the  Ottawa  area,  and  also  in  the 
area  of  Niagara  are  just  an  indication  of  what 
we  can  expect  in  the  other  regional  govern- 
ment situations.  There  is  the  high  cost  and, 
even  worse  than  that,  the  chairman  is  im- 
posed from  Queen's  Park  and  the  government 
at  the  local  level  is  insulated  from  the  needs 
of  the  public  community  by  the  large  bu- 
reaucracy that  is  established  under  these 
circumstances. 

It  seems  strange  indeed  that  the  govern- 
ment has  not  been  able  to  take  advantage  of 
the  experience— and  it  has  been  a  bad  ex- 
perience—in the  two  regional  governments 
now  established  for  a  number  of  years,  to 
ensure  that  if  we  are  going  to  have  an  in- 
crease in  the  number  of  regional  governments 
that  it  is  not  going  to  result  in  the  tremen- 
dous increase  in  local  costs  that  has  been  a 
part  of  this  particular  experience. 

Now,  this  has  been  characteristic  of  what 
the  government  has  done  during  the  last  four 
years.  Since  John  Robarts  gave  up  the 
Premiership  and  we  had  a  surplus  of  $150 
million,  our  deficits  year  by  year  have  been— 
well,  this  year  it  is  substantially  over  $400 
million;  last  year  $36  million.  The  first  year 
that  the  member  for  Peel  North  was  the 
Premier  it  was  $624  million,  and  actually  the 
year  in  which  he  came  into  oflfice,  it  was  a 
$136  million  deficit.  In  other  words,  since 
he  took  over  the  control  of  our  government, 
our  deficit  has  increased  by  $1.6  billion, 
compared  with  the  last  Robarts'  year  when 
the  surplus  was  $150  million.  I  think  that 
this  is  an  indication  which  has  been  estab- 
lished in  many  respects  by  policies  in  regional 
government  and  in  other  areas  of  new 
government  initiatives,  that  it  seems  to  have 
been  absolutely  careless  of  the  cost. 

Now,  we  feel  also  that  the  policies  asso- 
ciated with  regional  government  have  been 
unnecessarily  centralizing  and  you  need  only 
read  the  reports  that  were  put  out  by  the 
Ontario  Economic  Council  two  weeks  ago  to 
see  that  that's  borne  out  by  some  inde- 
pendent opinions.  I  want  to  quote  very 
briefly  from  report  No.  5  by  Lionel  D.  Feld- 
man,  from  page  41,  where  he  says: 

Few  meaningful  functions  are  being  left 
to  the  local  governments  to  perform  uni- 
laterally and  therefore  less  remains  in 
substantive  terms  to  be  decided  by  local 


councils.  If  this  prognosis  is  valid,  then 
the  future  is  dim  for  effective  local  gov- 
ernment as  fewer  and  fewer  people  will 
be  willing  to  stand  for  election  to  per- 
form non-important  tasks.  If  the  transfer 
of  functions  persists  unabated,  if  decen- 
tralization is  taken  to  mean  not  a  devolu- 
tion of  responsibility  but  the  placement  of 
loffices  of  the  province  outsidte  Toronto 
with  consultative  powers  only^or  as  one 
wag  has  recently  said:  "Regional  offices  in 
Ontario  today  are  given  only  the  power 
to  say  no"— then  the  future  of  the  re- 
lorganized  municipalities  is  bleak. 

I    notice   that   the   Treasurer   took   exception 

to  the  statement.  He  said  that  the  statement; 

from    the    Ontario    Economic    Council    was; 

untrue,   and  yet   this   is   the  way  it   is   seen- 

by  the  people  living  in  the  communities.   I 

want  to  quote  from  the  report  once  more: 

'What    this    study   demonstrates    is    that 

since   the   beginning   of   the    1960s,    there 

has  been  a  consistent  approach  to  the  way 

in  which  provincial  authorities  have  viewed' 

ilocal  government.    There  appears  to  be  a 

Iconsiderable  degree  of  scepticism   on   the 

part  of  senior  government  people  as  to  the 

inherent  capacity  of  the  municipalities  to 

achieve  goals  and  objectives. 

Now,  what  he  is  saying  there  in  his  best 
language  is  that  the  ministers'  and  the  senior 
government  officials  believe  the  people  at  the 
municipal  level  are  incompetent  to  establish 
goals  and  then  work  toward  achieving  them. 
This  is  a  feeling  that  we  have  been  aware 
of  for  many  years,  somehow  or  other, 
through  the  various  ministers  of  municipal 
affairs  and  lately  the  Treasurer— the  idea  that 
all  of  the  knowledge  and  the  ability  lies 
here  at  Queen's  Park;  that  the  municipalities- 
exist  only  as  somehow  a  window-dressing- 
operation  for  the  expenditure  of  some  public, 
funds. 

There  is  a  basic  difference  in  philosophy- 
that  I  want  to  put  forward  and  I  suppose, 
it  is  essentially  that  the  elected  people  in 
municipal  councils  and  in  school  boards  and 
in  hospital  boards  and  otherwise  have  the 
right  to  make  mistakes.  I  suppose  you  can 
say  that  the  York  board  has  made  a  mistake 
in  recent  months  and  it  is  all  right  here  to 
criticize  boards  if  they  so  do,  but  surely 
we  must  realize  that  if  local  government  is 
going  to  have  any  significance  in  the  future, 
we  must  abandon  the  process  where  the  gov- 
ernment has  to  appoint,  from  the  centre, 
the  chief  of  these  local  governments;  that  we 
must  see  that  the  conditions  are  removed 
from   the   grant  progranmie  instead  of  put^ 


}  MARCH  8,  1974 


ting  on  more  and'  more  of  these  conditions; 
that  we  must  see  that  the  people,  in  plan- 
ning responsibilities,  can  establish  their  own 
goals  and'  essentially  have  the  powers  to 
fulfil  them;  that  the  time  has  come,  surely, 
when  the  Minister  of  Education  will 
not  have  day-to-day  budgetary  controls 
over  every  school  board  in  the  province; 
that  the  Minister  of  Health  (Mr.  Miller)  does 
not  have  day-to-day  budgetary  control  over 
every  hospital  board;  that  the  minister  who 
designates  himself  as  the  chief  planner  does 
not  have  the  power  to  veto  or,  in  most 
cases,  simply  approve  or  delay  every  plan- 
ning decision  in  the  province. 

(This  is  an  indication  that  has  come 
strongly  from  the  report  by  Mr.  Feldbian. 
He  ends  up  with  just  a  very  short  quote 
indeed.  It  comes  from  the  last  sentence  in 
his  report  on  page  44  and  I  quote:  "The 
future  of  effective  local  government  in  On- 
tario rests  on  shaky  foundations."  I  think 
that  he  is  right,  I  believe  that  the  people 
are  concerned  more  and  more  with  their  local 
rights  in  the  provision  of  government  services. 
I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that  the  Treasurer, 
or  the  Minister  of  Health,  or  the  Minister 
of  Education  has  all  the  knowledge  and  I'm 
not  prepared  either  to  say  that  local  officials 
can't  make  mistakes.  I'm  simply  here  to  say 
that  thdy  have  the  right  to  make  those 
mistakes  in  the  structure  of  a  reformed  gov- 
ernment that,  in  fact,  would  be  a  partner- 
ship between  the  municipalities  in  the  prov- 
ince rather  than  the  sham  which  we  have 
been  treated  to  in  recent  years'. 

I  want  to  just  end  this  section  of  my 
remarks,  Mr.  Speaker,  by  quoting  from  a 
letter  signed  by  Mr.  Jack  Nolan  of  1096-lOth 
St.  E.,  Owen  Sound.  I  quote  from  his  letter: 

Dear  Mr.  Nixon: 

I  am  writing  to  you  on  behalf  of  the 
Boxter  Ward  Ratepayers  Association, 
Georgian  Bay  township. 

We  have  just  received  our  new  assess- 
ment notice  under  the  regional  munici- 
pality of  Muskoka.  We  are  shocked  beyond 
words.  It  would  appear  that  assessments 
are  up  to  fantastic  figures  and  the  taxes  on 
these  new  rates  will  be  up,  for  some,  500 
per  cent.  I,  for  example,  was  assessed  at 
$1,360.   Now  the  assessment  is  $49,600. 

I  interrupt  here  to  say  that,  of  course,  the 
assessment  per  se  does  not  set  the  tax  rate, 
but  he  goes  on  to  say: 

At  10  mills  tax  rate,  which  the  officials 
propose,  my  taxes  go  from  $106  last  year 
to  about  $496  this  year.  For  this  we  re- 
ceive nothing  that  we  did  not  have  before, 


which  was  nothing.  The  exception  is  that 
last  year  two  garbage  buckets  were  put  at 
the  end  of  our  road  for  garbage  to  be 
placed  in. 

That  is  the  end  of  the  quote  from  the  letter 
from  Mr.  Nolan. 

I  think,  better  than  anything  else,  it  in- 
dicates what  happens  under  regional  govern- 
ment. We  can  collect  the  statistics  which 
show  that  the  percentages  go  up  by  fantastic 
rates  year  by  year,  but  when  the  taxpayers 
themselves  convey  this  sort  of  information, 
and  you  place  yourselves  in  their  situation 
where  they  are  faced  with  a  500  per  cent  in- 
crease, not  associated  in  any  way  with  im- 
proved services,  you  realize  that  the  regional 
government  experiment  has  been  a  failure 
and  that  the  costs  associated  with  it  are  com- 
pletely unconscionable  and  that  the  access 
to  democratic  process  has  been,  if  not  re- 
moved, insulated  to  the  extent  that  the 
people  concerned  feel  themselves  inade- 
quately served. 

So  I  would  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the 
government's  fiscal  policies  and  taxation 
policies  have  been  as  instrumental  perhaps 
as  much  as  anything  else  in  increasing  the 
cost  of  living  in  this  province  and  adding 
pressure  to  the  inflationary  spiral.  I  re- 
member the  debate  on  the  increase  in  the 
sales  tax  that  took  place  in  the  House  last 
spring,  when  it  was  brought  to  your  atten- 
tion, sir,  and  the  attention  of  the  Treasurer, 
that  an  increase  in  the  sales  tax  from  five  to 
seven  per  cent,  an  increase  of  40  per  cent, 
would  exert  inflationary  pressures  and  I  sub- 
mit to  you,  sir,  that  it  has. 

But  this  is  not  the  only  matter  that  must 
concern  us. 

I  think  we  must  accept,  as  members  of 
this  House,  a  great  deal  more  responsibility 
for  establishing  an  apparatus  which  will  re- 
view and  thereby  control,  at  least  in  part, 
changes  in  prices  in  this  province. 

Speaking  in  the  budget  debate  when  I  first 
became  the  leader  of  the  Liberal  Party— I 
think  1967  was  the  date  of  the  speech— I 
called  for  the  establishment  of  a  committee 
of  the  Legislature  which  would  have  the 
function  of  reviewing  price  increases  in  that 
sector  of  the  economy  which  had  the  ap- 
parent powers,  as  a  monopoly  would  have, 
to  impose  prices  to  which  there  is  no 
alternative. 

At  the  time,  my  comments  were  sparked 
by  changes  in  automobile  insurance  costs 
and  it  was  indicated  simply  in  the  news- 
papers that  the  automobile  insurance  prices 


100 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


would  go  up  by,  I  think  that  year,  from 
seven  per  cent  to  15  per  cent.  I  felt,  as  did 
many  others,  that  the  increase  was  not 
warranted  but  there  was  no  machinery  estab- 
lished at  the  provincial  level  even  to  see  if 
there  was  a  justification. 

At  the  time,  it  was  brought  to  public 
attention  that  the  laws  of  Ontario  give  the 
government  the  right  to  roll  back  insurance 
costs  if  it  sees  fit.  There  are  sections  to  the 
Insurance  Act  not  proclaimed,  having  been 
on  the  statute  books  for  many  years,  which 
would  permit  the  government  to  do  that  if  it 
saw  fit.  In  reiterating  the  proposal  for  a 
committee  of  the  Legislature  which,  in  fact, 
would  act  as  a  price  review  committee,  I  am 
motivated  in  precisely  the  same  way.  I  be- 
lieve such  a  committee  should  deal  with 
those  aspects  of  the  economy  and  the  cost  of 
living  in  this  province  over  which  the  people 
have  no  control  at  all  nor  any  alternative. 

For  example,  a  week  ago  the  Premier  an- 
nounced that  he  was  approving  an  increase 
in  the  payments  to  the  medical  practitioners 
in  Ontario  under  the  OMA  fee  schedule 
of  about  seven  per  cent  —  I  believe  it  was 
7.2  per  cent  —  with  a  further  increase  next 
year  of  something  approximating  four  per 
cent.  I  felt  at  the  time  that  we  as  members 
of  the  Legislature  had  been  slighted;  that 
we  had  not  an  opportunity  to  look  at  the 
justification  and  that  the  time  had  surely 
come  when  the  province,  through  its  Legis- 
lature, must  establish  a  mechanism  whereby 
something  more  than  the  Premier's  say-so 
or  the  say-so  of  a  government  minister  is 
necessary  for  the  prices  to  change.  In  the 
case  of  so  many  services  and  products,  the 
government  has  no  influence  or  chooses  to 
exert  no  influence  whatsoever. 

It  is  in  this  connection  that  I  recommend 
to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  establishment  of  a 
prices  review  committee.  In  connection  with 
the  doctors'  situation  we  should  require  that 
the  joint  committee  of  doctors  and  govern- 
ment people  come  before  the  committee  to 
give  the  justification  which  apparently  was 
sufiBcient  to  convince  the  Premier. 

lit  is  true  the  doctors  have  not  had  an 
increase  in  their  payments  since  May  1, 
1971.  They  have,  I  suppose,  shown  an  ad- 
mirable restraint  in  at  least  not  requesting 
such  increases  but  I  think  it  is  an  indication 
of  how  seriously  out  of  line  those  payments 
were  three  years  ago.  At  least  the  doctors 
took  this  sort  of  a  fee  schedule  holiday  dur- 
ing that  period  of  time  when  it  is  apparent 
their  incomes  went  up  substantially  because 


of  the  greater  utilization  of  their  services  by 
the  people  in  the  province. 

I  would  say  that  the  establishment  of 
such  a  prices  review  committee  would  deal 
not  only  with  this  sort  of  matter,  and  the 
insurance  requirements  for  automobiles  that 
we  have  already  talked  about,  but  other 
matters  with  specific  provincial  respon- 
sibility. 

The  last  thing  I  would  like  to  do  is  to 
equate  it  in  any  way  with  the  food  price 
committee  in  Ottawa.  I  feel  that  committee 
has  made  some  serious  errors  in  conjunction 
with  its  attempts  either  to  control  these 
prices  or  to  bring  public  pressure  to  bear  on 
those  increases. 

I  think,  for  example,  specifically  of 
decisions  taken  by  the  Ontario  Milk  Market- 
ing Board.  I  believe  it  would  be  in  the 
puislic  interest  of  the  farmers  and  the  people 
who  are  going  to  be  consuming  the  products 
controlled  by  the  Ontario  Milk  Marketing 
Board  if  in  the  future,  when  it  makes  the 
decision  that  prices  will  change  —  and  I 
expect  it  will  decree  a  $10-a-cwt  price  for 
milk  within  the  next  short  while  —  that  that 
board  come  before  such  a  price  review  com- 
mittee and  give  the  justification. 

il'm  always  glad  to  hear  the  comments 
made  by  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and 
Food  in  Ontario  and  his  collteague  in  Ottawa, 
Mr.  Whelan,  when  they  indicate  the  tremen- 
dous increases  in  costs  that  farmers  have  to 
pay.  How  much  better  it  would  be,  how- 
ever, if  the  statistics  associated  with  that 
were  put  before  an  appropriate  committee 
in  such  a  way  that  the  justification,  if  it  is 
there  —  and  in  this  case  it  is  there  —  would 
be  known  or  knowable  to  all. 

Obviously  it  is  not  sufBcient  to  deal  with 
it  as  we  have  been  dealing  with  it  in  the 
past  simply  by  saying,  as  3ie  Speech  from 
the  Throne  says,  that  this  is  a  federal  respon- 
sibility and  we  will  do  everything  we  can 
to  help. 

Number  one,  our  rate  of  expenditures  has 
got  to  be  brought  under  control.  Number 
two,  we  can  have  a  prices  review  committee 
here  which  can  substantially  have  an  impact 
on  the  community  and  which  is  going  to 
have  a  control  function  in  the  long  run. 

The  last  point  I  want  to  refer  to,  Mr. 
Speaker,  and  I  hope  that  I  can  complete  this 
before  the  adjournment  at  1  o'clock,  has  to 
do  with  the  energy  situation  in  this  prov- 
ince. I  was  interested  indeed  to  attend'  the 
energy  conference  held  in  Ottawa  convened 
by  the  government  of  Canada  and  attended 
by    all    the    premiers    from    across    Canada. 


MARCH  8,  1974 


101 


We  were  in  a  special  position  there  because 
it  is  not  often  at  a  federal-provincial  con- 
ference that  the  Premier  of  Ontario  has  to 
take  the  position  of  being  a  have-not  prov- 
ince. But  that  was  very  much  the  case  in 
Ottawa.  Our  Premier  contributed  little  to 
the  discussion  other  than  to  speak  across  the 
table  to  the  Premier  of  Alberta,  indicating 
we  would  be  very  interested  in  the  future 
in  buying  their  coal.  This  is  quite:  an  inter- 
esting matter  indteed.  I  would'  suspect  that 
in  the  next  few  years  Alberta  coal  will  be 
brought  down  here  by  rail  transportation  and 
Great  Lakes  transportation  and  have  an  im- 
portant place  indieed  in  our  energy  complex. 

I  was  quite  interested  in'  attending  the 
conference  to  find  that  the  comments  asso- 
ciated with  the  financial  distribution  of  the 
revenues  of  the  special  taxes  associated  with 
the  export  of  oil  did  not  come  up  for 
further  discussion  and  review.  As  you  are 
aware,  Mr.  Speaker,  under  the  provisions 
of  the  federal  initiative  the  Province  of 
Alberta  this  year  is  going  to  receive  almost 
half  its  provincial  budget  from  the  oil 
revenue  tax  sources.  This  means  really  that 
a  special  kind  of  a  taxation  Valhalla  has 
been  established  by  virtue  of  the  fact  that 
the  provinces'  ownership  of  the  natural  re- 
source was  in  no  way  questioned  by  any  of 
the  provinces  or  by  the  government  of 
Canada. 

I  was  among  those  who  really  expected 
the  government  of  Canada  to  say,  under 
these  particular  circumstances,  oil  was  a 
strategic  resource  and  one  which  they  were 
going  to  undertake  the  management  of  to  the 
exclusion,  or  at  least  the  partial  exclusion, 
of  the  provincial  governments.  Such  was  not 
the  case,  and  the  revenues  from  the  special 
oil  export  tax  are  now  flowing  to  Alberta 
and  will  account  for  about  half  that  prov- 
ince's budget  this  year.  During  the  next 
following  years  they  wdll  assume  perhaps  an 
even'  larger  basis  as  long  as  the  resource 
holds  out. 

I  was  interested  also  to  read  reports  of 
Mr.  Lougheed's  budget  statement  made  in 
the  Legislature  there,  yesterday  I  believe, 
which  indicates  that  those  special  revenues 
are  going  to  be  used,  of  course,  for  the 
development  of  the  province,  but  also  to 
make  it  even  more  of  a  tax  haven  than  it 
has  been  —  no  sales  tax,  no  death  dbties 
and  the  revenues  being  paid  from  a  resource 
that  many  people  think  of  as  a  national 
resource. 

But  if  we  are  going  to  say  that,  we  must 
then  look  at  the  resource  in  out  own  prov- 
ince,   and    that    is    specifically   the    uranium 


resource.  Very  brief  reference  was  made  to 
that  in  the  Speech  from  the  Throne. 

An  indication  was  made  briefly  there  that 
a  review  of  the  policy  in  that  regard  is 
going  to  be  undertaken.  We  were  concerned 
some  months  ago  to  hear  that  the  ovmership 
of  the  main  uranium  resource  in  this  prov- 
ince had  undertaken  a  sale  amounting  to 
$800  million  of  uranium  and  uranium  oxidte 
to  Japan.  Evidently  this  sale  has  not  gone 
through,  it  is  subject  to  federal  review. 

But  we  in  our  own  position  are  in  a  situa- 
tion where  the  uranium  resource  may  in 
the  long  run  far  exceed  the  value  of  the  oil 
resources  of  Alberta.  We  have  discussed 
previously  the  excellerut  record,  although  it  is 
a  short  record,  of  the  nuclear  power  instal- 
lation at  Pickering,  which  is  the  largest  and 
safest  nuclear  electric  plant  in'  the  world, 
according  to  the  information  providied  to  us. 

I  was  interested  to  receive  a  publication 
in  the  mail  a  few  days  ago  which  indicated 
something  even  more  interesting.  I  wasn't 
able  to  fathom  it  entirely,  but  it  was  actually 
a  comparison  of  the  costs  of  the  production 
of  electricity  at  Nanticoke,  which  is  a  coal- 
fired  installation  and  a  brand-new  one  — 
therefore  the  most  efiicient  one  we  have,  I 
presume  —  and  the  nuclear  installation  at 
Pickering. 

Comparing  the  cost  of  production  on  the 
basis  of  thousands  of  dollars  per  kilowatt- 
hour,  the  figure  is  6.21  for  the  production 
of  nuclear  energy  at  Pickering.  This  com- 
pares with  a  much  larger  figure  at  Nanticoke, 
amounting  to  7.55  —  thousands  of  dollars 
per  kilowatt-'hour  —  if  the  Nanticoke  facility 
is  to  bum  coal  of  a  low  sulphur  content. 

In  fact,  we  are  looking  at  a  nuclear  facility 
that  is  in  operation.  It  is  not  a  pilot  plant. 
It  is  a  full-scale  facility  that  produces  power 
at  the  rate  of  6.21  thousands  of  dollars  per 
kilowatt-hour  —  that  is  the  way  the  com- 
parison of  the  prices  takes  place  —  compared 
with  7.55.  Now,  since  those  figures  were 
arrived  at,  the  costs  of  the  energy  sources, 
other  than  uranium  —  that  is,  oil  and  coal  — 
must  have  escalated  tremendously. 

The  thing  I  found  of  greatest  impact  in 
the  figures  is  that  even  at  1970  prices  the 
cost  of  the  production  of  electricity  from 
nuclear  sources  was  far  more  economical 
than  the  cost  of  production  from  coal  and  ofl 
sources.  Unfortunately  we  have  made  a  sub- 
stantial commitment  to  further  coal  utiliz- 
ation. Nanticoke  is  costing  us  $755  mfllion 
to  build.  Lennox,  which  is  supposed  to  bum 
only  oil,  is  going  to  cost  $373  million  to  build 
—and  is  largely  established  now,  although 
I  don't  believe  it's  been  fired  up. 


102 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


I'm  quite  interested  in  the  decisions  of 
Ontario  Hydro  in  making  such  extensive  and 
further  commitments  to  fossil-fuel-fired 
energy  sources  when  the  statistics  indicate 
that  the  nuclear  source  is  not  only  com- 
petitive but  substantially  cheaper  if  the 
figures  that  I  received  are  valid. 

The  point  really  is  that  while  we  are 
concerned  with  the  cost  of  oil  and  coal,  the 
establishment  and  utilization  of  our  nuclear 
resources  must  concern  us  very  deeply  in- 
deed and  in  fact  must  be  a  matter  of  growing 
importance  to  us  all.  I  would  like  sometime 
to  hear  from  the  minister  responsible  just 
what  government  policy  is  going  to  be  in 
that  regard. 

Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  covered  a 
number  of  points  that  it  might  well  be  pos- 
sible to  continue  on  another  day  but  I  have 
found  that  you,  sir,  are  usually  very  reason- 
able indeed  when  we  on  the  opposition 
benches  want  to  put  forward  our  views  and 
our  alternatives  to  government  policy. 

I  and  my  colleagues  have  perused  the 
Speech  from  the  Throne  and  we  have  found 
that  it  was  a  substantial  disappointment.  I 
have  indicated  clearly  two  areas  where  I 
think  that  the  new  policy  enunciations  are 
adequate,  although  we  will  examine  the 
legislation  associated  with  them  carefully. 
I  refer  specifically  to  a  prescription  drug 
programme  for  pensioners  and  to  the  estab- 
lishment of  an  environmental  hearing  board. 

There  is  a  good  deal  more  that  should  be 
said  about  that,  of  course,  but  on  the  examin- 
ation of  the  speech  we  feel  that  it  has  been 
inadequate  in  a  number  of  significant  areas. 

Mr.  Nixon  moves,  seconded  by  Mr. 
Breithaupt,  that  the  following  words  be 
added  to  the  motion: 

This  House  condemns  the  government: 

1.  For  its  chaotic  education  policy  which 
has  led  to  the  inability  of  teachers  and 
school  boards  to  reach  a  reasonable  agree- 
ment and  resulted  in  the  dislocation  of 
our  education  system; 

2.  For  its  failure  to  establish  a  prices 
review  committee  of  the  Legislature  which, 
together  with  a  reduction  in  provincial 
deficit  spending,  would  exert  control  on 
inflation; 

3.  For  its  inadequate  land-use  policy 
which  continues  to  permit  the  unreasonable 
loss  of  farm  land  to  government  and  pri- 
vate development  and  the  unnatural  infla- 
tionary pressures  of  foreign  land  purchases 
without  safeguarding  Canadian  ownership 
and  interest; 


4.  For  its  failure  to  establish  plarming 
and  land  servicing  programmes  without 
which  serviced-lot  costs  have  escalated 
housing  out  of  the  financial  reach  of  our 
residents. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  normally 
adjourn  the  debate  and  I  am,  obviously,  go- 
ing to  adjourn  the  debate  until  Monday. 

Just  before  I  do,  since  there  are  perhaps 
five  minutes  left  and  it  isn't  inappropriate, 
I  would  just  like  to  say  a  brief  word  about 
the  demonstration  that  gathered  in  front  of 
the  Legislature  today  and  about  the  York 
county  dispute. 

That  dispute  is  getting  very,  very  much 
out  of  hand  and  that  dispute  is  beginning  to 
show  a  real  negligence  on  the  part  of  govern- 
ment to  do  something  about  it.  I  was  one 
of  those  people  who  admired  the  intervention 
of  the  Minister  of  Education  in  the  latter 
few  days  of  January  of  this  year  as  he  made 
a  herculean  effort  in  some  cases  to  resolve 
many  of  the  outstanding  disputes,  and  did 
so  artfully  and  well  on  occasion,  and  I  don't 
begrudge  commending  him  in  a  number  of 
specific  instances. 

I  do  not  commend  the  condtict  of  the 
Minister  of  Ed'ucation  and  the  Premier  in 
the  York  county  dispute.  The  York  county 
dispute  has  been  allowed  to  continue,  un- 
justifiably and  illegitimately  in  our  view,  for 
several  weeks  without  the  Minister  of  Edu- 
cation saying  three  things  publicly  that  had 
to  be  said: 

1.  That  the  dispute  is  as  much  between 
the  teachers  and  the  administrator  of  the 
board  as  it  is  between  the  teachers  and'  the 
trustees; 

2.  That  the  trustees  should  be  required  to 
negotiate  teacher-pupil  ratios,  and  that  that 
should  be  understood  as  a  legitimate  item 
for  collective  bargaining  just  as  it  is  imder- 
stood  in  Bill  275; 

3.  That  the  intractable  position  of  the 
board,  the  master-servant  relationship  which 
it  vests  in  itself,  is  intolerable  to  the  Minis- 
ter of  Education  and  to  the  Premier,  and 
will  not  be  allowed  to  continue,  and  there- 
fore the  Minister  of  Education  in  having  laid 
it  out  publicly  —  because  there  comes  a  point 
where  the  kids  have  been  out  too  long  and 
where  clearly  the  situation  has  to  be  settled 
—that  he  wants  to  settle  it  without  compvJ- 
sory  arbitration,  and  I  very,  very  much  hope 
that  will  be  possible,  then  what  the  Minister 
of  Education  now  does,  surely,  is  one  of  two 
things: 

Either  he  submits  —  and  my  colleague 
from  Wentworth  (Mr.  Deans)  was  discussing 


MARCH  8,  1974 


103 


this  with  me  earlier  and  he  has  some  con- 
siderable expertise  in  the  world  of  labour 
rektions  —  to  both  parties'  a  government 
proposal,  and  I  have  no  doubt  in  my  mind 
that  in  considerable  measure  it  would  be 
acceptable  to  the  teachers.  If  it  were  then 
rejected  by  the  board,  everybody  in  the 
world  would  see  the  board  for  what  it  is. 
Or  alternatively,  that  the  Ministry  of  Educa- 
tion settles  with  the  teachers,  itself  using  the 
withdrawal  of  the  grants  that  it  would 
normally  give  to  the  board,  and  then  rein- 
state the  trustees'  position  for  the  rest  of 
their  term  to  be  dealt  with  by  the  electors 
of  York  county  as  they  see  fit. 

But  the  time  for  the  endless  negotiations 
using  Mr.  Mancini  of  the  Ministry  of  Labour 
has  perhaps  reached  the  point  where  the 
Minister  of  Education  and  the  Premier  him- 
self intervene,  make  a  recommendation  —  or 
indleed,  suspend  the  board  in  order  to  nego- 
tiate directly  with  the  teachers.  Anything  to 
avoid  compulsory  arbitration. 

It  serves  some  political  purposes  to  have 
the  strike  prolonged  so  that  we  are  faced 
with  an  extremity  next  week  or  the  week 
after.  I  understand  that.  It  serves  no  edu- 
cational purpose,  because  the  response 
around  the  Province  of  Ontario  from  the 
teachers  would  not  be  one  anyone  wishes  to 
contemplate.  I  don't  think  the  cabinet  wishes 
to  contemplate  it. 

But  to  have  the  public  gradually  turning 
on  their  teachers,  to* have  the  dispute  move 
to  a  point  of  hostility  and  antagonism;  that 
the  board  in  a  gesture  of  outright  blackmail 
said  —  "We  will  hire  teachers  afresh  on 
March  15"  —  to  allow  that  to  happen,  to 
allow  a  board  to  behave  in  that  way  is 
beyond  the  pale,  is  insufferable.  And  you 
don't  have  an  education  system  in  a  county 
in  such  difficulty  when  everyone  who  has 
any  eyes  to  see  witnesses  the  behaviour  of 
this  board.  Therefore,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is 
absolutely  —  as  my  colleague  from  Went- 
worth  says  quietly  —  absolutely  no  mutual 
respect;  and  obviously  that's  exactly  what 
happens. 

Some  of  these  boards,  Mr.  Speaker,  be- 
have in  ways  which  are  unimaginable.  The 
Windsor  separate  school  board'  searches  for 


a  route  to  the  courts  when  they  have  signed 
a  document  accepting  as  binding  voluntary 
arbitration.  I  mean  that  kind  or  behaviour 
on  the  part  of  a  board  is  absolutely  un- 
believable. Somewhere  the  Minister  of  Edu- 
cation has  to  say  to  the  public:  "Certain 
things  are  acceptable,  certain  things  are  not 
—  and  I  am  not  going  to  play  the  pussy- 
footing game  forever  as  Minister  of  Educa- 
tion in  saying  that  they  negotiate  when  I 
know  one  party  is  negotiating  in  bad  faith 
from  day  one." 

What  we  need  is  to  have  an  offer  made 
in  good  faith  from  the  ministry,  or  the 
ministry  deals  with  the  teachers  in  good 
faith  who  are  clearly  willing  to  db  so.  Or, 
indeed,  that  the  ministry  point  out  to  the 
public  where  it  has  gone  wrong;  but  let  it 
not  disintegrate. 

'I  plead  with  minister  not  to  let  it  dis- 
integrate or,  indeed,  let  us  not  have  the  kind 
of  confrontation  again  that  we  had  back  in 
December.  The  collective  bargaining  process 
can  work.  There  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind  it 
can  work,  if  there  is  support  for  it.  And 
that's  what  is  now  lacking  on  the  part  of 
govemment.  They  are  going  through  the 
motions  wdthout  the  kind  of  support  that 
would  resolve  it. 

I  move  the  adjournment  of  the  debate  and 
we  will  save  the  more  pertinent  remarks  for 
Monday. 

Mr.  Lewis,  moves  the  adjournment  of  the 
debate. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  Mr.  Speaker,  on 
Monday  we  will  continue  with  the  debate 
and  I  think  that  I,  without  divulging  any 
confidences,  that  I  can  tell  the  member  who 
has  taken  his  seat  the  minister  and  the 
Premier  are  both  involved  in  that  particular 
question  at  this  particular  time  in  seeking  a 
solution. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler  moves  the  adjournment 
of  the  House. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjourned  at  1  o'clock,  p.m. 


104  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


CONTENTS 

Friday,  March  8,  1974 

Workmen's     Compensation    Board,     questions    of    Mr.    Guindon:     Mr.     R.    F.    Nixon, 

Mr.   Bounsall,  Mr.   Lewis   67 

Camp  Associates  Advertising  Ltd.,  questions  of  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Lewis, 

Mr.    Singer    68 

Environmental  hearing  board,  questions  of  Mr.  W.  Newman:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon, 

Mr.   Good,   Mr.   Deacon,   Mr.   Renwick   72 

Food  prices,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  MacDonald,  Mr.  Deans  73 

Public  Service  Act  conflict,  questions  of  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Breithaupt,  Mr.  Lewis  75 

Effect  of  freight  rate  cut,  questions  of  Mr.  Rhodes:   Mr.  Germa 76 

Communications-6  Inc.,  questions  of  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Singer  76 

Preventive  medicine,  questions  of  Mr.  Miller:   Mr.  Shulman  76 

Intermediate  capacity  transit  system,  questions  of  Mr.  Rhodes:   Mr.  Givens,  Mr.  Lewis  77 

Negotiations  on  behalf  of  community  colleges,  questions  of  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Boimsall  ..  78 

Withdrawal  of  teachers'  services,  questions  of  Mrs.  Birch:  Mr.  Deacon  78 

Alleged  Mafia  activities,  questions  of  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Shulman  79 

Presenting    reports,    crop    insurance    commission     and    agricultural    research    institute, 

Mr.    Stewart    79 

Presenting  report,  mineral  review,  Mr.  Bemier 79 

Debate  on  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Lewis  79 

Motion  to  adjourn  debate,   Mr.   Lewis,  agreed  to   103 

Motion    to    adjourn,    Mr.    Winkler,    agreed   to    103 


No.  5 


^ 


Ontario 


Hegiglature  of  Ontario 


OFFICIAL  REPORT  —  DAILY  EDITION 
Fourth  Session  of  the  Twenty-Ninth  Legislature 


Monday,  March  11, 1974 


Speaker:  Honourable  Allan  Edward  Renter 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARLIAMENT   BUILDINGS,   TORONTO 

1974 


Price  per  session,  $10.00.  Address,  Clerk  of  the  House,  Parliament  Bldgs.,  Toronto 


CONTENTS 


(Daily  index  of  proceedings  appears  at  back  of  this  issue.) 


107 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  2  o'clock,  p.m. 

Prayers. 

Hon.  J.  W.  Snow  ( Minister  of  Government 
Services):  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  intro- 
duce to  the  members  a  group  of  25  students 
from  W.  H.  Morden  Public  School  in  Oakvllle 
who  are  with  us  today  in  the  west  gallery. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson  (York  North):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  would  like  to  introduce  to  you, 
and  through  you  to  the  members  of  the 
Legislature,  a  group  of  young  ladies  from 
Seneca  College,  King  campus,  who  are  en- 
rolled in  the  secretarial  course. 


POINT  OF  PRIVILEGE 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  rise  on  a  point  of  privilege. 

Mr.     OL.     Maeck     (Parry     Sound):      Mr. 
Speaker- 
Mr.  Speaker:  The  point  of  privilege  first. 

Mr.  Singer:  I  wish  to  draw  to  your  atten- 
tion, sir,  what  I  think  is  a  blatant  breach  of 
the  privilege  of  the  members  of  this  House 
by  a  senior  civil  servant. 

Apparently  there  is  to  be  tabled  in  the 
House  today,  by  the  Attorney  General  (Mr. 
Welch),  a  report  of  the  Law  Reform  Com- 
mission dealing  with  family  law.  Copies  of 
this  report  were  made  available  on  Friday  by 
a  senior  oflBcial  of  the  Attorney  General's 
department  to  two  Toronto  newspapers,  and 
only  to  two  Toronto  newspapers,  the  Globe 
and  Mail  and  the  Star.  They  were  not 
solicited  by  these  papers;  the  reports  were 
handed  to  representatives  of  these  papers. 

Not  only  were  all  the  rest  of  the  news 
media  ignored— The  Canadian  Press,  all 
the  radio  and  television  stations  and  so 
on— but  much  more  serious,  Mr.  Speaker, 
was  the  fact  that  this  information  was  first 
brought  to  the  attention  of  tlie  public  by  news 
stories  far  in  advance  of  the  information  being 
available  to  the  members  of  the  House. 

It  would  be  my  submission,  sir,  that  there 
has  been  a  very  serious  breach  of  the  priv- 


MoNDAY,  March  11,  1974 

lieges  of  the  House;  that  information  of  this 
sort,  commissioned  by  this  House,  directed  to 
the  Law  Reform  Commission,  has  no  right  to 
be  handled  in  this  way;  and  that  for  what- 
ever reasons,  the  official  of  the  Attorney 
General's  department  acted  in  serious  breach 
of  the  privileges  of  this  House,  and  I  think  he 
should  be  disciplined  by  you,  sir. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Of  course  I  am  sure  that  the 
facts  submitted  by  the  hon.  member  for 
Downsview  are  correct.  I  have  not  had  any 
prior  knowledge  of  the  situation,  nor  do  I 
have  any  other  information  than  that  sub- 
mitted by  the  hon.  member  for  Downsview, 
which  I  do,  of  course,  accept  as  being  correct 
at  this  moment. 

Before  I  undertake  to  make  any  further 
comments,  while  it  does  appear  as  if  there 
has  been  a  breach  of  privilege,  I  would  ask 
the  indulgence  of  the  hon.  member,  and  the 
House  indeed,  for  time  to  look  into  this 
matter  and  to  get  all  of  the  information 
available  so  that  I  might  be  in  a  position  to 
comment  further  upon  it. 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  On  the 
point  of  privilege  just  for  a  moment,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  am  so  relieved  to  have  this  par- 
ticular report  out  and  public  that  one  would 
almost  excuse  anything.  But  I  must  say, 
apart  from  the  apparent  impropriety  of  giv- 
ing it  only  to  selected  news  media  representa- 
tives, it  really  is  a  bit  much,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  the  report  could  not  simultaneously  be 
tabled  in  the  House  so  that  those  of  us  who 
are  called  to  comment  on  it,  on  any  side  of 
the  House,  might  have  an  opportunity  to  scan 
through  it  as  quickly  as  those  from  the  media. 

Mr.  Maeck:  I  would  like  to  introduce  some 
students  from  the  great  riding  of  Parry 
Sound,  29  grade  8  students  from  the  elemen- 
tary school  at  Britt,  who  are  in  the  east 
gallery. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Statements  by  the  ministry. 


CONSOLIDATED  COMPUTER  INC. 

Hon.  C.  Bennett  (Minister  of  Industry  and 
Tourism):  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  statement 
regarding  Consolidated  Computer  Inc.,  which 


108 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


is  being  released  by  the  federal  agency  and 
the  company  at  this  very  hour.  I  wish  at  this 
time  to  inform  the  hon.  members  of  new 
financing  arrangements  being  entered  into  by 
the  Ontario  Development  Corp,  and  the  fed- 
eral government's  General  Adjustment  Assist- 
ance Board  with  respect  to  support  for 
Consolidated  Computer  Inc.  This  new  joint 
support  programme  will  enable  the  company 
to  expand  in  both  the  North  American  and 
overseas  computer  markets. 

As  members  may  be  aware,  Consolidated 
Computer  is  the  largest  Canadian-owned 
computer  manufacturing  company.  Their  pro- 
ducts are  already  installed  in  18  countries 
throughout  the  world.  The  company  has 
developed  two  new  products,  the  Key-Edit 
50  and  the  Key-Edit  1000  systems,  which 
have  not  yet  been  introduced  to  the  North 
American  market,  although  the  Ontario  gov- 
ernment has  recently  purchased  the  50  sys- 
tem for  the  Ministry  of  Transportation  and 
Communications,  and  the  federal  government 
for  its  Manpower  division  has  purchased  the 
1000  system. 

The  General  Adjustment  Assistance  Board 
has  indicated  willingness  to  support  a  lease- 
financing  programme  for  the  marketing  of 
the  company's  products  here  in  North  Amer- 
ica. It  is  our  understanding  that  they  will 
have  a  financing  programme  up  to  a  maxi- 
mum of  $26  million.  New  federal  and  pro- 
vincial support  will  be  provided  through  a 
plan  that  will  make  available  up  to  $7  mil- 
lion to  the  company  in  additional  operating 
funds  during  1974.  Of  that  amount,  $3  mil- 
lion has  now  been  advanced,  half  by  GAAB 
and  half  by  ODC.  Over  the  long  term,  the 
plan  foresees  increased  participation  in  the 
ownership  of  the  company  by  private  in- 
dustry. 

I  think  it  would  be  useful,  Mr.  Speaker, 
for  me  to  say  a  few  words  about  the  history 
of  Consolidated  Computer  Inc.  It  was  formed 
in  1968  and  became  a  public  company  in 
1969.  In  the  fall  of  1971  the  company  suf- 
fered a  liquidity  crisis  and  went  into  receiver- 
ship. However,  with  the  support  of  ODC  and 
GAAB  the  company  was  reorganized  and 
was  profitable  in  1972. 

During  1972  and  1973  the  company  car- 
ried out  a  major  redesign  of  its  products  and 
restructured  its  plant  and  products  into  two 
new  systems.  Development  expense  amount- 
ed to  several  million  dollars.  Large  orders 
were  secured  from  two  firms  in  Europe  and 
Japan  and  South  America.  Two  of  the  com- 
pany's overseas  customers,  ICL  in  England 
and  Fujitsu  in  Japan,  are  the  largest 
non- American    computer    companies.    Unfor- 


tunately the  development  of  the  new  system 
took  longer  and  cost  more  than  anticipated 
which  resulted  in  losses  in  1973. 

In  spite  of  these  losses,  the  company's 
current  prospects,  while  carrying  some  risks, 
are  believed  suflBcient  to  merit  the  support  of 
GAAB  and  ODC  in  attempting  to  penetrate 
the  North  American  market  and  expand  into 
overseas  markets.  The  prime  objective  of  our 
assistance  is  to  help  develop  a  viable,  self- 
sustaining  Canadian-owned  and  operated 
company  that  is  based  on  high  technology. 
There  are  certainly  risks  associated  wdth  any 
venture  into  this  area  but  we  consider  that 
the  company  has  a  reasonable  chance  ol 
achieving  this  objective. 

This  year  the  company  expects » to  export 
$23  million  worth  of  its  new  systems,  pur- 
chase $5  million  in  Canadian  components 
and  increase  employment  above  the  current 
rate  of  550,  of  whom  400  are  in  Ottawa 
associated  with  the  company's  engineering 
and  manufacturing  operations.  To  date  direct 
loans  or  guaranteed  advances  from  ODC 
amounted  to  $4.3  million.  Under  the  new 
programme,  ODC  may  advance  another  $3.5 
million. 

We  will,  of  course,  monitor  the  operations 
of  Consolidated  Computer  very  closely.  There 
are  several  conditions  to  the  agreement  for 
the  extension  of  the  funds.  We  have  already 
taken  steps  to  ensure  that  over  the  next  few 
months,  the  company's  management  will  have 
the  best  support  available.  To  this  end  ODC 
and  GAAB  have  arranged  for  the  appoint- 
ment of  Mr.  W.  V.  (Bill)  Moore,  former 
president  of  IBM  Canada,  as  full-time  interim 
chairman  of  the  board  of  Consolidated  Com- 
puter. 

Hon.  members  will  no  doubt  have  taken 
note  that  the  Ontario  Securities  Commission, 
in  consultation  with  the  company,  tempor- 
arily suspended  trading  of  Consolidated  Com- 
puter stock  last  Friday.  This  action  was  taken 
to  enable  the  financial  community  to  prop- 
erly assess  the  impact  of  these  new  arrange- 
ments on  the  company's  financial  status. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Oral  questions.  The  hon. 
member  for  York  Centre.  ^>       vi-: 


WITHDRAWAL  OF  TEACHERS' 
SERVICES 

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  Mr. 
Speaker,  in  the  absence  of  the  Minister  of 
Education  (Mr.  Wells)  I  wish  to  ask  the 
Premier  if,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
chairman  of  the  negotiating  committee  a 
week   ago   suggested    the   possibility    of   the 


MARCH  11,  1974 


109 


minister's  setting  up  a  trusteeship,  and  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  I  now  have  7,309 
names  in  two  days,  names  of  registered 
voters  who  wish  such  a  trusteeship,  will  the 
government- 
Mr.  P.  J.  Yakabuski  (Renfrew  South):  The 
member  went  out  soliciting  on  Saturday. 

Mr.  R.  D.  Kennedy  (Peel  South):  Did  the 
member  consult  with  his  leader? 

Mr.  Deacon:  In  the  event  of  a  lack  of 
agreement  being  reached  by  continued  negoti- 
ations today,  or  the  teachers  not  agreeing  to 
voluntary  binding  arbitration  by  9  p.m.  to- 
night, will  the  government  introduce  legis- 
lation it  might  feel  is  necessary  to  set  up  a 
trusteeship,  or  at  least  follow  the  path  the 
government  used  on  a  previous  occasion  when 
a  board  got  into  financial  diflficulty  and  under 
section  12(1)  of  the  Ministry  of  Education 
Act  did  set  up  legislation  for  trusteeship. 
Will  the  Premier  undertake  to  do  that? 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  No,  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  Premier  won't. 

Mr.  Deacon:  In  light  of  the  fact  that  for 
over  five  weeks  students  have  not  been  edu- 
cated in  the  high  schools  of  York  county,  at 
least  not  a  full  education,  and  the  fact  that 
something  has  to  be  done  and  that  voluntary 
arbitration  is  preferable  to  compulsory  arbitra- 
tion, will  the  Premier  indicate  to  us  what  he 
w4ll  do? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Is  the  member  making  a 
speech  or  asking  a  question? 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  is  asking  for  compulsory 
arbitration. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  acting  leader  of  the 
opposition  party,  in  his  usual  convoluted  way, 
is  asking  this  government,  in  solving  the 
problem,  to  encroach  upon  local  autonomy 
about  which  he  preaches  with  such  vigour 
from  time  to  time. 

Mr.  Singer:  It's  the  government's  problem, 
why  shouldn't  the  Premier  solve  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  answer  is  that  this 
government  is  far  more  concerned,  obviously, 
about  the  welfare  of  those  14,000  students 
than  the  members  of  the  opposition.  This  has 
been  evident  here  for  a  long  time.  But  I 
would  think  the  hon.  membei^s  response  the 
other  night  at  the  meeting  of  the  board,  where 
many  board  members  disagreed,  and  mem- 
bers of  the  public  as  well,  with  the  approach 
that  he  was  taking,  should  have  been  suffici- 
ent indication. 


The  Minister  of  Education  has  worked  on 
this  problem,  as  he  has  on  the  other  16,  with 
a  great  deal  of  success;  the  York  one  has  not 
been  successful  to  date.  It  poses  a  very  real 
problem  for  this  government  and  it  is  our 
hope  that  we  can  come  to  grips  with  it. 

But  I  would  say  with  respect,  to  the  acting 
leader  of  that  party,  that  it's  time  the  hyxK)c- 
risy  was  over;  they  should  recognize  that 
having  voted  against  Bill  274,  as  they  did, 
which  bill  was  intended  to  bring  some  of 
these  things  to  an  end,  and  today  coming  in 
here  as  they  are,  is  just  completely  contra- 
dictory. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Would  the  Premier  not  agree— 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough West  wanted  a  supplementary. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Supplementary? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  Ijas  had 
one.  We'll  take  turns  on  it.  , 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  hon.  member  can  open  it 
again  if  he  wishes. 

Can  I  ask  the  Premier;  could  he  table  the 
document  which  the  Minister  of  Education 
submitted  as  a  basis  for  arbitration,  or  could 
he  tell  us  specifically  of  its  content  as  it  re- 
lates to  non-monetary  items? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can't  recite 
these  matters  specifically.  There  were  several 
items  contained  in  the  proposal  from  the  min- 
ister to  the  board  and  to  the  profession,  which 
I  understand  was  acceptable,  and  I  think  as 
a  matter  of  fact  was  executed  by  the  board; 
but  the  various  items  in  it  I  can't  relate  to 
the  hon.  member.  However  I  do  believe  I 
can  get  him  a  copy  of  it. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supplementary. 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  Mr.  Speaker,  supple- 
mentary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Supplementary? 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson:  In  view  of  the  proposi- 
tion put  forward  by  the  member  for  York 
Centre,  has  it  been  drawn  to  the  Premier's 
attention  at  any  time  that  the  board  of  educa- 
tion in  the  county  of  York  has  been  acting 
irresponsibly? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  that  ques- 
tion is  directed  to  me,  or  through  me  to  the 
acting  leader  of  the  opposition  party,  it's  quite 
obvious  that  the  acting  leader  of  the  opposi- 
tion party  is  saying  that  York  county  board 


110 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


is  incapable,  is  acting  irresponsibly  and  is  not 
acting  in  the  interests  of  the  elected  people  in 
that  part  of  the  Province  of  Ontario;  I  am 
not  prepared  to  say  that. 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  Supple- 
mentary. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Supplementary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  One  supplementary. 

Mr.  Deacon:  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
Premier  has  talked  about  hypocrisy,  would 
not  the  Premier  agree  that  five  weeks  of  no 
school  in  York  and  the  minister's  intervention 
being  so  ineffective  would  indicate  maybe 
there  is  hypocrisy  on  his  side? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  would  say  this,  and  I 
will  quote  to  members  opposite,  chapter 
and  verse,  the  observations  made  by  some  of 
their  own  members  as  to  how  a  few  weeks 
out  of  school  would  be  a  good  thing  for 
the  kids.  I  say  to  the  House  that  this 
government  is  far  more  concerned  than 
members  opposite  about  the  educational 
welfare  of  the  children  in  York.  And  this 
was  demonstrated  here  last  December.  The 
member  should  read  what  his  leader  said  in 
Peterborough. 

Mr.  Deacon:  The  Premier  didn't  help 
education  quality  then. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Come  on.  The  member 
knows  better. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  In  keeping  with  the 
programme  of  alternating,  it  is  the  NDFs 
turn.  The  hon.  member  for  Port  Arthur. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 
Although  the  Premier  cannot  remember  the 
details  of  the  documents  submitted  by  the 
minister  and  executed  by  the  board,  can 
he  recall  if  the  contentious  pupil-teacher 
ratio  was  specifically  mentioned  in  the 
document,  and  the  assurance  to  the  teachers 
that  that  ratio  would  not  be  above  the 
provincial  average? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
copy  of  the  document  here.  The  minister 
is  meeting  on  this  situation  at  this  precise 
moment.  I  expect  he  will  be  here  fairly 
shortly.  Quite  frankly,  because  there  are 
discussions  going  on,  I  would  like  to  talk 
to  the  minister  before  I  table  this  as  a 
public    document;    but    I    do    have    it    here 


and  if  the  minister  has  no  objection  we  will 
undertake  to  do  it. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  is  kind  of  crucial  to  the 
debate. 

Mr.  Speaker:  This  must  not  develop  into 
a  debate  and  there  have  been  five  supple- 
mentaries.  I  will  permit  one  more;  the  hon. 
member  for  Windsor-Walkerville. 

Mr.  B.  Newman  (Windsor-Walkerville): 
Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  In  view  of  the 
fact  that  the  parents  of  the  children  attend- 
ing these  North  York  secondary  schools  have 
made  arrangements  for  their  children  to 
attend  Toronto  secondary  schools,  what 
action  does  the  ministry  plan  on  taking  to 
ensure  that  they  are  in  attendance  at  the 
North  York  schools? 

Mr.  Lewis:  How  is  the  member  going 
to  vote  when  he  brings  it  in? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  one  would 
think  that  the  member  for  Windsor-Walker- 
ville, who  had  something  to  contribute  with 
respect  to  the  debates  of  last  December, 
wouldn't  be  too  concerned  that  the  children 
have  only  been  out  the  five  weeks.  I  recall 
very  factually  how  this  was  a  good  educa- 
tional experience,  some  of  it  flowing  from 
over  in  the  other  opposition  party  admittedly. 

I  would  say  to  the  hon.  member  for 
Windsor-Walkerville  that  the  attendance  by 
the  York  students  within  the  Metropolitan 
Toronto  school  system,  in  my  opinion,  does 
not  constitute  a  viable  alternative  to  the 
proper  functioning  of  the  educational  system 
in  York  itself;  so  we  are  not  encouraging  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  York 
Centre  on  a  new  question. 


CONSOLIDATED  COMPUTER  INC. 

Mr.  Deacon:  A  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Industry  and  Tourism:  In  view  of  the  fact 
that  we  have  just  heard  the  announcement 
about  Consolidated  Computer,  is  it  pro- 
posed to  give  some  of  the  government 
business  now  awarded  to  IBM  to  Consoli- 
dated Computer  to  help  this  company? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  my 
statement  I  have  already  covered  that  very 
point.  One  of  the  machines,  the  new  pro- 
duction, the  50  model,  has  been  purchased 
by  the  government  of  Ontario  for  the 
Ministry  of  Transportation  and  Communica- 
tions. Complimentary  remarks  should  be 
paid  to  the  federal  government;  it  has  pur- 
chased  the    1000   series    for   the    Manpower 


MARCH  11,  1974 


111 


centre  in  Ottawa  as  well.  That,  I  think, 
speaks  well  of  both  governments  trying  to 
stimulate  some  activity  with  a  Canadian 
company. 

Mr.  Speaker,  The  hon.  member  for  York 
Centre. 


MANAGEMENT  BOARD  ORDERS 

Mr.  Deacon:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  of 
the  Chairman  of  the  Management  Board: 
In  view  of  item  No.  66  in  the  auditor's  re- 
port indicating  that  Management  Board 
orders  amounted  to  some  $110  million,  of 
which  $96  million  was  actually  spent,  why 
was  it  not  possible  for  this  very  substantial 
amount  of  money— as  I  would  consider  it 
and  I  think  most  people  in  the  province 
would  consider  it— to  be  approved  by  cabinet 
and  presented  to  the  Legislature?  Was  there 
a  shortage  of  time  or  was  it  considered  to 
be  an  insignificant  amount? 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  Mr,  Speaker,  all 
these  moneys,  of  course,  are  spent  in  the 
public's  best  interest  and  it  is  not  always— 

An  hon.  member:  Is  that  right? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  I  say  yes  to  the  mem- 
ber. It  is  not  always  that  the  moneys  which 
appear  in  Management  Board  orders  are 
separate  items;  they  are  often  transferred 
v^dthin  departments.  Therefore  if  the  mem- 
ber wanted  to  be  specific  and  had  a  point  I 
would  answer  it. 

Mr.  Deacon:  A  supplementary:  In  view  of 
the  fact  that  most  of  the  moneys,  or  a  good 
part  of  thei  moneys,  are  spent  before  this 
Legislature  does  consider  them,  because  we 
don't  get  into  the  estimates  until  after  the 
budget  is  handed  down  and  we  don't  com- 
plete their  consideration  until  late  in  the  year, 
would  it  not  be  appropriate  for  these  Manage- 
ment Board  orders  to  indeedi  be  placed  before 
the  Legislature  for  consideration  during  the 
year  so  that  we  actually  do  have  an  oppor- 
tunity to  comment  upon  them  and  whether, 
in  our  view,  they  are  in  the  public  interest? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  a 
Management  Board  of  Cabinet  Act,  as  I  am 
sure  the  hon.  member  knows,  and  he  will 
have  the  opportunity  to  discuss:  them  in  due 
course  when  the  estimates  are  before  the 
committee. 

Mr.  Singer;  Mr.  Speaker,  by  way  of  supple- 
mentary, surely  the  Chairman  of  the  Manage- 
ment Board  must  recognize  the  basic  principle 


of  responsibility  to  the  Legislature,  and 
through  the  Legislature  to  the  people  of  On- 
tario, for  expenditures.  Would  the  chairman 
not  agree  that  the  expenditure  of  $100  million 
by  Management  Board  order  is  stretching  the 
credibility  of  the  people  of  Ontario  and  is 
really  spending  money  without  proper  legisla- 
tive review? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is  not 
the  case.  The  Management  Board  of  Cabinet 
Act  was  passed  by  this  Legislature,  and  we 
conform  to  it  very  rigidly. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Supplementary?  The  hon 
member  for  Ottawa  Centre. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  of 
the  Attorney  General:  Will  the  Attorney 
General  tell  us  how  long  he  has  had  the 
Board  orders  when  his  estimates  come  up. 
That,  I  think  he  will  agree,  will  be  about  15 
months  after  the  actual  expenditure  of  the 
money.  What  steps  wall  he  take  in  future  in 
order  to  ensure  the  possibility  of  debate  of 
Management  Board  orders  at  or  around  the 
time  that  the  money  is  being  spent? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  entire 
matter  is  open  to  discussion  and  surveillance 
by  the  public  accounts  committee  and,  as  far 
as  the  calling  of  estimates  is  concerned,  I 
think  the  hon.  member  knows  full  well  that 
we  spent  more  time  last  year  than  we  have 
ever  spent  before.  As  far  as  that  session  was 
concerned,  the  members  opposite  had  the 
opportunity  but  it  was  used  for  other  pur- 
poses; I  have  no  arguments  there.  When  the 
opportunity  comes  for  the  estimates  to  appear 
l^efore  the  estimates  committee,  I  will  be 
there. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  That's  current  estimates.  We 
are  talking  about  a  year  ago. 

LAW  REFORM  COMMISSION 
REPORTS  ON  FAMILY  LAW 

Mr.  Deacon:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  of 
the  Attorney  General:  Will  the  Attorney 
General  tell  us  how  long  he  has  had  the 
Ontario  Law  Reform  Commission  reports  on 
family  law  and  when  we  can  expect  to  re- 
ceive legislation  based  on  it  for  consideration 
by  this  House? 

Hon.  R.  Welch  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Justice  and  Attorney  General):  Well,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  just  happen  to  have  some  copies 
of  the  report  with  me  this  afternoon,  which  I 
am  going  to  table;  and  following  full  public 
discussion,  our  legislative  proposal  will  be 
placed  before  this  House. 


112 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Singer:  Why  did  the  minister  give  it 
to  the  papers  on  Friday? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Supplementary:  What  was  the 
point  of  leaking  the  report  in  the  fashion  he 
did  prior  to  its  being  tabled  in  the  House 
and  only  to  selective  groups  in  the  media? 

Mr.  Singer:  Two  papers. 

Mr.  Lewis:  How  did  he  come  to  that  de- 


Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Well,  I  think  the  word 
"selective"  is  a  very  unfortunate  word  to  use- 
Mr.    Foulds:    It    was    a    very    unfortunate 
practice. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  Quite  accurate, 
though. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  It's  a  very  good  word, 
but  it  doesn't  happen  to  describe  what 
happened,  so  there's  a  nice  distinction. 

Mr.  Singer:  What  did  happen? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  If  I  might  just  explain 
the  procedures:  There  are  occasions  when  the 
Ontario  Law  Reform  Commission's  reports 
have  in  fact  been  released  prior  to  them  be- 
ing tabled  in  the  House.  The  Attorney 
General,  I  understand  from  the  legislation, 
can  decide  how  in  fact  he  makes  these  re- 
ports public  or  what  rej>orts  he  does  make 
public.  But  let  me  explain,  quite  frankly, 
what  I  did  in  cannection  with  this:  These 
three  reports  were  there.  The  contents,  as  far 
as  I  am  concerned,  have  far-  and  wide- 
ranging  implications.  There  are  those  in  the 
media  who,  I  think,  are  very  responsible  and 
who  suggested  that  if  in  fact  it  was  to  be 
properly  reported,  there  might  be  some 
advantage  if  they  had  the  opportunity  to 
study  the  report- 
Mr.  Singer:  Oh,  come  on.  Only  two  of  the 
media  of  the  whole  province  are  responsible? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  —so  that  in  fact  they 
could  quite  correctly  expand  on  it  in  the 
course  of  reporting.  Therefore,  those  who  re- 
quested it,  on  the  understanding  that  it  would 
not  appear  until  such  time  as  it  was  tabled— 

Mr.  Singer:  Oh,  that  dirty  old  Glbbe! 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  —they  in  fact  were  given 
copies  of  the  report. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  Globe  will  not  observe 
release  dates. 


Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  All  I  say,  all  I  say— well, 

so  I  understand,  so  I  read- 
Mr.    Lewis:    The   minister   is   a   novice   in 

pohtics. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Yes,  but  the  point  that  I 
want  to  make- 
Mr.  Singer:  The  terrible  Globe  and  Mail! 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  —is  that  with  that  par- 
ticular understanding,  copies  of  the  reports, 
which  I  will  table  later  this  afternoon,  were 
madb  available- 
Mr.  Lewis:  To  whom? 
Mr.  Singer:  To  whom? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  To  anyone  who  requested 
them. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Anyone  who  requested  them? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  That's  right. 

Mr.  Singer:  Didn't  the  minister's  executive 
assistant  hand  them  to  representatives  of  the 
two  papers? 

Mr.  Lewis:  We  requested  them  in  the 
House. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  whose 
question  am  I  answering  at  the  moment? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough West. 

Mr.  P.  G.  Givens  (York-Forest  Hill):  Does 
the  minister  know  the  question? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  The  point  I  want  to  get 
across  is  that  that  is  exactly  what  happened; 
and  if  there  are  any  members  of  the  House 
who  feel  aflFronted  by  this,  I  apologize.  I  did 
that-quite  frankly,  that's  exactly  what  I  did 
on  Friday. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Somebody  asked  and  the  min- 
ister gave  them  to  them. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  This  was  the  under- 
standing. Now,  as  a  matter  of  principle,  the 
legislation  does  not  preclude  the  release  of 
reports  before  they  are  tabled  in  the  House; 
so  when  you  put  it  into  that  context,  there 
has  been  nothing  done  to  violate  any  statute- 
Mr.  Singer:  Shame  on  you. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  -or  any  particular  rule 
or  regulation.  In  fact,  up  to  this  time  there 
are  two  copies  of  reports  which  were  released 
and  one  of  which  is  not  yet  tabled. 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  could  the— 


MARCH  11,  1974 


113 


Mr.  Speaker:   Is  this  a  supplementary? 

Mr.  Singer:  Yes,  a  supplementary:  Could 
the  Attorney  General  explain  why  his  execu- 
tive assistant  sought  out  representatives  just 
of  the  Star  and  of  the  Globe  and  gave  them 
copies  and  ignored  everyone  else?  Are  those 
the  only  two  news  media  that  can  be  trusted 
in  this  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  question 
is  not  properly  worded  because  my  executive 
assistant  sought  out  no  one  for  copies  of  the 
reports.  The  representations  with  respect  to 
having  these  reports  were  made  to  him  by 
representatives  of  the  media  so  that  they 
could  adequately  report  them. 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  by  way  of  further 
supplementary,  could  the  Attorney  General 
tell  us  how  long  ago  the  executive  assistant 
was  sought  out,  who  sought  him  out,  and 
whether,  when  the  decision  was  made  to  re- 
lease copies  of  these  documents  to  these 
representatives,  why  the  executive  assistant 
did  not  seek  out  representatives,  say,  of  The 
Canadian  Press,  of  the  Ottawa  newspapers, 
the  Hamilton  newspapers,  the  Windsor  news- 
papers, the  radio  stations,  the  television 
stations? 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  ( Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development):  Would  that  have 
made  it  all  right? 

Mr.  Singer:  Or  least  of  all,  to  seek  out 
members  of  the  Legislature  who  had  ex- 
pressed more  than  a  passing  interest  in  these 
reports? 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  government  may  even 
have  to  hold  a  press  conference. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  certainly 
on  the  basis  of  the  experience,  under  these 
circumstances,  the  hon.  member  can  be 
assured  that  different  procedures  will  be  fol- 
lowed in  the  future  and  we  will,  in  fact, 
invite  everyone  to  what  is  referred  to  as  a 
"lock  up,"  when  everyone  will  have  access  to 
them. 

I  am  sorry  if  there  has  been  any  misunder- 
standing, either  among  members  of  the  House 
or  among  members  of  the  gallery.  It  was 
certainly  unintentional  on  my  part  and  I  was 
acting  in  what  I  thought  was  the  best  inter- 
ests of  the  pubhc  in  order  to  have  this  type 
of  reporting  with  respect  to  a  very  important 
matter.  And,  quite  frankly,  I  have  no  other 
explanation  to  give.  Really. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 


Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  It  would  seem 
to  me— 

Mr.  P.  D.  Lawlor  (Lakeshore):  I  have  a 
supplementary  remark,  Mr,  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  I  would  like—' 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  The  Speaker 
would  like  to  make  a  remark  at  this  point. 
It  would  seem  to  me  that  the  point  of  privi- 
lege as  raised  by  the  hon,  member  for 
Downs  view,  by  virtue  of  a  debate  that  has 
taken  place,  has  now  been  clarified  and  there 
will  be  no  further  necessity  on  the  part  of 
the  Speaker  to  make  any  other  comments. 

Mr.  Singer:  You  should  chop  off  the 
Attorney  General's  head. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  will  now  permit  further 
supplementaries. 

Mrs.  M.  Campbell  (St.  George):  A  supple- 
mentary, Mr.  Speaker:  In  view  of  the  fact 
that  the  Attorney  General,  in  replying  to  our 
leader's  remarks,  mentioned  public  hearings, 
would  the  Attorney  General  now  tell  this 
House  what  procedure  he  is  prepared  to  set 
up  for  public  hearings  on  this  particularly 
urgent  matter? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  at  the  time 
of  tabling  the  report  I  will,  in  fact,  share 
with  the  House  some  initial  statements  with 
respect  to  this.  Certainly  I  want  a  very  wide 
discussion  of  this  matter  before  we  proceed, 
and  indeed  would  welcome  any  suggestions 
from  the  hon.  member  to  ensure  that  we,  in 
fact,  are  covering  all  possible  groups  or  indi- 
viduals who  may  want  to  make  some  com- 
ments insofar  as  the  follow-up  on  these 
reports  is  concerned. 

Mrs.  CampbeU:  A  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  On  that  I  wonder  what  we  mean 
by  wide  publication  and  hearings.  What 
length  of  time  does  the  Attorney  General 
consider  would  be  adequate  to  come  to  some 
conclusions  in  this  matter? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  I  think  it  would  be  diffi- 
cult to  specify  certain  periods.  I  would  want 
to  be  satisfied,  Mr,  Speaker,  that  there  was 
sufficient  time  to  allow  all  who  were  obvi- 
ously interested  in  this  matter  to  express 
views  with  respect  to  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  member  for 
York  Centre  have  further  questions?  The  hon. 
member  for  Scarborough  West. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Ren  wick  (River  dale):  It  will  still 
be  in  in  time  for  the  election. 


114 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


REPORT  ON  MINERAL  PRODUCTION 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  Minister  of  Education 
having  appeared  in  the  House— well,  let  me 
ask  a  question  of  one  of  his  colleagues  while 
he  chats  with  the  Premier.  Could  I  ask  a 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Natural  Resources? 
Why  will  his  ministry  not  release  the  most 
recent  annual  statistical  report  on  the  mineral 
production  of  Ontario? 

Hon.  L.  Bemier  (Minister  of  Natural  Re- 
sources): Mr.  Speaker,  this  question  has  never 
been  asked  of  me,  and  we  will  release  the 
information. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Good. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  then  he  is  countermand- 
ing what  we  have  specifically  been  told  twice 
by  the  mineral  resources  branch  of  his  minis- 
try—that the  report  is  available,  but  was  not 
to  be  released  publicly.  It  has  been  available 
for  some  time  and  printed  for  some  time,  I 
gather. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think 
this  change  came  about  three  years  ago  when 
Management  Board  in  an  austerity  move  to 
cut  down  the  amount  of  material  that  was 
put  in  the  annual  report- 
Mr.  Renwick:  We  have  noticed.  It  has 
been  cut  dovm.  To  eliminate  the  minister's 
picture  perhaps. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  —chose  to  pull  this  in- 
formation out,  and  to  narrow  dowTi  and  put 
a  little  more  eflSciency  in  the  report.  But  this 
information  has  always  been  made  available 
to  the  public  on  request. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Fine.  Well,  will  the  minister 
table  this  document  in  the  House? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Yes. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Thank  you. 


WITHDRAWAL  OF  TEACHERS' 
SERVICES 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  have  a  question  of  the  Minis- 
ter of  Education.  Could  he  advise  us  in  any 
way  how  the  teachers  are  responding  to  his 
ultimatum?  If,  for  reasons  of  negotiation,  he 
wants  to  qualify  that,  can  he  table  in  the 
House  the  document  which  he  signed  with 
the  chairman  of  the  York  county  board  as  a 
basis  for  arbitration? 

Hon.  T.  L.  Wells  (Minister  of  Education): 
Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  be  happy  to.  If 
the   hon.  member   wishes  to  have  it  tabled 


afterwards,  I  will  table  it  at  the  appropriate 
time.  I  can  send  him  a  copy  if  he  would  like 
it.  It's  a  public  document.  It  was  given  to  the 
press  yesterday  afternoon,  and  we  are  now 
waiting,  although  the  teachers  have  said  that 
they  will  not  accept  it.  I  gave  a  9  o'clock 
deadline  and  I'm  waiting  for  an  answer. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  The  public  has  a  right 
to  know. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Yes.  The  hon.  member 
sort  of  smiles  when  I  mention  it  is  a  public 
document. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  I  laughed  out  aloud. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  have  always  held  that 
the  public  should  be  informed  on  these 
things.  That's  precisely  why  this  document 
was  made  public. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Before  the  House,  Mr. 
Speaker? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  really 
is  not— 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  On  Sunday  when  we 
were  working  on  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  —a  document  of  this 
House.  This  is  a  proposal  by  the  Minister  of 
Education  to  two  parties  who  are  engaged  in 
a  bargaining  dispute.  I  think  I  would  be 
very  happy  to  table  it  in  the  House,  but  for 
the  hon,  member  to  suggest  that  it  should 
have  been  tabled  in  this  House  before  it  was 
made  public  is  preposterous. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough West. 


TENDERS  FOR  CIVIL  SERVICE 
INSURANCE  PACKAGE 

Mr.  Lewis:  Could  I  ask  the  Chairman  of 
the  Management  Board  whether  he  is  recom- 
mending to  the  London  Life  consortium  of 
companies  which  hold  the  fringe  benefit  pack- 
age for  the  civil  servants  of  Ontario  that  that 
consortium  be  broken  up  at  the  point  of 
next  tender  and  that  free  and  open  tenders  be 
made  available  for  all  insurance  companies 
which  choose? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't 
object  to  that  suggestion.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
I  think  that  was  the  case  the  last  time  the 
package  was  tendered.  It  just  so  happened 
that  the  consortium  was  made  up  of  the  com- 
panies that  are.  Those  people  had  an  oppor- 
tunity to  tender  too.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the 


MARCH  11,  1974 


115 


method  of  tendering  is  discussed  by  the  com- 
mission and  by  the  members  of  the  CSAO;  so 
I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  I'll  con- 
sider that. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  there  is  a  diflFerence  be- 
tween considering  it  and  accepting  it.  Will 
the  minister  put  that  fringe  benefit  package 
out  to  open  tender  where  any  one  member  of 
the  consortium  may  tender  rather  than  the 
consortium  as  a  whole? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Yes,  I  will. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Thank  you.  I'm  having  diflB- 
culty  asking  questions,  because  when  I  turn- 
ed around  I  thought  the  Minister  of  Com- 
munity and  Social  Services  (Mr.  Brunelle)  was 
here.  He  is  not. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  Yes,  he  is 
here.  He's  coming  in. 


OHC  BUDGET 

Mr.  Lewis:  Sorry.  Could  I  ask  the  Minister 
of  Housing  a  question  first?  In  the  light  of 
his  vigorous  housing  initiatives,  why  has  the 
revised  budget  estimate  for  this  year  for  the 
Ontario  Housing  Corp.  been  dropped  by  $20 
million  in  the  most  recent  publication  of  On- 
tario finances? 

Hon.  S.  B.  Handleman  (Minister  of  Hous- 
ing): Mr.  Speaker,  I'll  have  to  look  into  that 
question  and  give  the  hon.  member  an  answer 
as  quickly  as  possible. 


DAY  NURSERIES  ACT  REGULATIONS 

Mr.  Lewis:  Thank  you.  I  have  one  final 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Community  and 
Social  Services.  When  v^dll  he  provide  the 
regulations  under  Bill  160— the  provision  of 
day  care— which  would  govern  co-operative 
and  non-profit  day  care  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario? 

Hon.  R.  Brunelle  (Minister  of  Community 
and  Social  Services):  Mr.  Speaker,  those  regu- 
lations should  be  in  force  this  month.  They've 
all  been  approved.  They  will  be  gazetted,  I 
would  hope,  this  month,  so  they  should  be 
in  force  this  month. 

Mr.  Lewis:  And  they  will  take  eflFect  when? 
At  the  moment  they  are  proclaimed? 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Yes,  I  beheve  so,  Mr. 
Speaker,    on   the   date   they   are   proclaimed. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  member  for 
Scarborough  West  have  further  questions? 


Mr.  Lewis;  No. 

Mr.  Speaker:  If  not,  the  hon.  Minister 
of  Energy  has  the  answer  to  a  question  asked 
previously. 


ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT  OF 
PUBLIC  WORKS 

Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of  En- 
ergy): Mr.  Speaker,  on  Thursday  last  I  was 
asked  certain  questions  by  the  member  for 
Ottawa  Centre  pertaining  to  the  Arnprior 
dam.  He  suggested  that  I  was  not  making 
certain  information  available.  I'm  pleased  to 
table  today- 
Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park):  Did  the  min- 
ister change  his  mind? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  —letters  which  have 
been  written  to  the  member  for  Ottawa  Cen- 
tre by  the  vice-chairman  of  the  then  Hydro- 
Electric  Power  Commission,  dated  Jan.  31, 
1974,  Nov.  19,  1973  and  Dec.  20,  1973;  to- 
gether with  certain  material  which  was  sup- 
plied to  the  member  under  date  of  Jan.  31; 
a  Itetter  from  the  chairman  of  the  then  com- 
mission to  me,  dated  Aug.  23,  1973;  certain 
documents  of  the  commission,  a  study  of  the 
generation  projects  division  dated  May,  1972, 
a  report  of  the  study  on  the  impact  on  the 
community  dated  March,  1972,  and  a  report 
entitled  "Geotechnical  Feasibility  Studies" 
dated  January,  1972.  All  these  reports  have 
been  provided  to  the  member. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Now  the  hon.  mem- 
ber has  to  read  them. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  They  are  tabled  in 
the  House. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  of  Natural 
Resources  also  has  the  answer  to  a  question. 

Mr,  Cassidy:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  A  supplementary?  All  right. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  appreciate  all  the  informa- 
tion which  I  have  had  from  Mr.  Evans  and 
Mr.  Gathercole  and  other  people  in  the  min- 
istry concerning  the  Arnprior  dam.  The  un- 
fortunate thing  was,  and  the  reason  I  raised 
the  question  in  the  Legislature,  Mr.  Speaker, 
none  of  that  information,  in  fact,  provided  a 
satisfactory  explanation  for  the  initial  decision 
to  construct  the  dam. 

That  is  why  I  asked  last  week  in  the  Legis- 
lature if  the  minister  would  table  the  en- 
gineering feasibility  study  which  was  another 
document  in  that  series  which  included  com- 


116 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


munity  impact,  environment  and  geotechnical 
feasibility  studies.  Those  three  studies  have 
been  made  available  but  the  minister  last 
week  said  he  would  not  make  the  engineering 
feasibility  study  available,  nor  would  he  make 
available  information  prepared  by  the  geol- 
ogists who  reported  to  Hydro  on  the  project 
at  the  start. 

In  view  of  the  openness  he  is  now  display- 
ing, would  he  undertake  to  table  in  the  Legis- 
lature the  engineering  feasibility  study  and 
the  geological  material  provided  to  Hydro  in 
order  that  we  can  have  as  complete  a  record 
as  possible? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr,  Speaker,  I  think 
the  information  which  has  been  provided  is 
more  than  suflRcient. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supplemen- 
tary: Could  the  minister  explain  how  the  in- 
formation provided  can  be  deemed  to  be 
satisfactory  when  the  basic  engineering  feasi- 
bility data  have  not  yet  been  tabled? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  I  doubt  very  much, 
Mr.  Speaker,  if  even  I  could  explain  that  to 
the  member's  satisfaction. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  A  supplementary:  Would  the 
minister  explain  why  the  ministry  is  being  so 
defensive  as  to  deny  information  after  seek- 
ing for  a  while  to  provide  information  about 
this  project?  What  is  it  that  the  government 
is  trying  to  cover  up  with  this  project? 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West):  The 
feasibility    study    said    "don't    build    it." 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  this 
party  and  this  government  tries  to  cover  up 
nothing.  We  are  not  going  to  get  down  and 
play  cheap  little  games  like  the  member  has 
been  playing  for  the  last  several  weeks. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
What  is  it  about  this  engineering  feasibility 
study  which  has  the  minister  so  frightened? 
Why  can  it  not  be  made  a  public  document 
so  we  can  see  the  basis  on  which  the  decision 
was  arrived  at?  Why  does  the  minister  have 
to  hide  this  particular  study?  Why  is  it  so 
central? 

Mr.  E.  M.  Havrot  (Timiskaming):  The 
member  is  so  concerned  about  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Mr.  Speaker,  we 
have  provided  all  kinds  of  information  to 
the  member.  He  doesn't  want  it.  He  doesn't 
believe  it. 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  has  read  it. 


Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  He  continually 
quotes  it  out  of  context  and  plays  some  sort 
of  little  game  which  we  are  not  about  to 
play. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Stokes:  If  the  minister  has  nothing  to 
hide  why  hide  it? 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  A 
supplementary  to  the  minister:  Did  the  feasi- 
bility study  recommend  against  building  the 
dam? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  No. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  It  didn't?  Will  he  table 
it  so  we  can  come  to  our  conclusions  on  that 
point? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: The  minister  states  that  I  have  been  quot- 
ing material  out  of  context.  I  think  that  is  a 
serious  charge  to  make  in  the  Legislature. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 
Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  member's  colleague- 
Mr.    Renvnck:    They    do    it    all    the    time 
over  there. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  He  is  laughing. 

Mr.  Havrot:  Give  us  another  funny  one. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Would  the  minister  kindly 
cite  where  or  how  he  feels  I  have  been 
quoting  material  out  of  context?  Would  he 
explain  why  Hydro  is  refusing  to  provide 
information  because  it  says  we  might  not  be 
able  to  understand  it?  Does  he  consider  that 
is  a  justifiable  reason  for  refusing  informa- 
tion to  this  Legislature? 

Mr.  Havrot:   The  expert  on  everything. 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  Perhaps  the  member 
could  explain  if  Hydro  was  referring  to  him 
or  to  others;  or  just  him  in  particular? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  Lewis:  On  a  point  of  privilege,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  would  like  you  to  take  into  con- 
sideration the  refusal  of  the  Minister  of 
Energy  to  provide  the  document  legitimizing 
a  project  of  $78  million  —  all  of  which  is 
public  money  —  by  a  Crown  corporation, 
allegedly  accountable  to  this  House?  I  say, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  minister  cannot 
refuse  to  table  that  kind  of  study.  It  must 
be  tabled  in  this  House.  It  is  part  of  his 
ministerial  responsibility.  If  he  thiunbs  his 
nose  at  us  on  this,  he  thumbs   his  nose   at 


MARCH  11,  1974 


117 


everything.  It  should  be  made  a  public 
document  so  that  the  questions  can  be  asked. 
Who  does  he  think  he  is,  other  than  Darcy 
McKeough? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  I  hardly  think  that 
is  a  question,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  was  a  point  of  privilege  to 
the  Speaker. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  On  the  point  of  privilege,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Havrot:  Oh,  sit  down. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  would  just  add  that  for  all 
the  information  provided- 
Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.   Cassidy:   There  is  no  information  by 
Hydro  to  justify  this  dam- 
Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  This  is  a  misuse  of  the  ques- 
tion period. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  —apart  from  the  political 
desirability  of  electing  the  member  for  Ren- 
frew South. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  This  is  a  mis- 
use of  the  question  period.  I  will  undertake 
to  investigate  the  point  of  privilege  raised  by 
the  hon.  member  for  Scarborough  West.  I 
will  look  into  the  matter.  I  shall  be  pleased 
to  look  into  the  matter  but  this  is  developing 
into  a  debate. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Thank  you. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  hon.  member  is 
underprivileged. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  The  Minister  of  Energy  is  a 
provocative  kind  of  fellow. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  hon.  member  for 
Scarborough  West  have  new  questions? 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  I  didn't  ask  a  question. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough West  is  quite  correct. 

The  hon.  Minister  of  Natural  Resources 
has  the  answer  to  a  question  previously 
asked. 


WEEKEND  ROAD  MAINTENANCE 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  reply  to 
a  question  asked  of  me  by  the  hon.  member 


for  Thunder  Bay  concerning  the  Gull  Bay- 
Armstrong  road  which  was  apparently  not 
ploughed  one  weekend;  I  might  point  out  to 
him  that  we  contract  the  maintenance  of  that 
particular  road  with  the  Ministry  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications  who  in  turn 
sublet  it  to  a  local  contractor.  On  the  par- 
ticular weekend  that  he  refers  to,  the  oper- 
ator was  off  duty  on  the  Satiuday,  but  follow- 
ing my  investigation  he  was  back  up  there 
on  Sunday  and  the  road  was  ploughed  on 
Monday.  I  might  say  we  have  diready  made 
arrangements  for  next  year's  operation,  where 
we  will  shorten  the  contract  length  on  that 
particular  road  and  the  operators  will  be  on 
a  seven-day  basis. 

Mr.  Speaker:  A  supplementary? 

Mr.  Stokes:  Is  the  minister  aware  that  in 
awarding  the  sub-contracts  it  is  usually  done 
on  a  40-hour-week  basis  and  they  get  their 
time  in  on  a  Monday-to-Friday  basis,  which 
means  that  there  is  no  maintenance  on  Satur- 
day and  Sunday  when  a  lot  of  the  trajQBc  is 
in  and  out  of  remote  communities  such  as 
Armstrong?  When  he  is  negotiating  his  new 
contract  will  he  see  that  all  times  during  the 
week  will'  be  covered  for  road  maintenance? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  just  men- 
tioned in  the  latter  part  of  my  reply  to  the 
member  that  the  contracts  for  next  year  would 
be  on  a  seven-day  basis,  so  they  will  be  oper- 
ating right  around  the  clock. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  York- 
Forest  Hill. 


ONTARIO  BUILDING  CODE 

Mr.  Givens:  To  the  Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations:  How  does  he  in- 
tend to  process  this  voluminous  tome,  draft 
of  the  Ontario  Building  Codfe;  when  does  he 
intend  to  dt>  it,  and  what's  more  to  the  point, 
when  does  he  intend  to  table  any  legislation 
on  this  very  vital  subject? 

Hon.  J.  T.  Clement  (Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations):  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
intend  this  session  to  file  the  legislation  under 
which  the  code— which  is  really  regulations 
under  the  legislation— will  apply.  I  filed  those 
regulations  back,  I  believe,  in  December,  Mr. 
Speaker,  to  give  an  opportunity  to  those  many 
communities  and  municipalities  and  indi- 
viduals who  exhibited  an  interest  in  the  con- 
tents from  a  technical  sense  and'  I  undertake 
to  file  the  legislation  and  introdlice  a  bill  this 
session  in  this  House. 


118 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Givens:  Supplementary:  Does  the  min- 
ister not  intend  to  have  some  kind  of  public 
forum,  a  standing  committee  or  another  com- 
mittee, to  consider  the  mass  of  dietail  and 
the  technical  details  in  this  draft? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clements:  That  is  a  possibility, 
Mr.  Speaker.  May  I  point  out  that  legislation 
was  not  tendered  in  December  at  the  time 
that  I  tabled'  the  regulations  which  the  hon. 
member  has  in  his  hand,  because  at  that  time 
there  were  intense  negotiations  being  con- 
ducted in  Ottawa  with  the  federal  govern- 
ment on  the  part  of  two  or  three  associations 
insofar  as  a  warranty  or  a  house  guarantee 
was  concerned,  and  if  the  federal  government 
was  going  to  proceed  by  implementing  legis- 
lation providing  for  warranties  and  guarantees 
on  residential  housing,  then  that  would  have 
altered  our  position  on  the  ultimate  legisla- 
tion which  I  have  referred  to  today. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  In  view  of  the  fact  there  are  appar- 
ently going  to  be  amendments,  as'  I  under- 
stand it  from  consulting  with  the  ministry, 
how  will  those  be  brought  forward  to  ensure 
that  they  are  in  fact  incorporated?  I'm  talk- 
ing now  about  such  things  as  asbestos  liners 
for  chimneys  and  about  the  code  for  the 
handicapped.  Will  that  be  brought  forward 
as  a  separate  and  supplementary  item,  or  how 
will  we  be  assured  it  is  there  when  the  time 
comes? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think 
the  proper  procedure  with  legislation  of  this 
nature  would  be  to  introdtice  the  bill  and 
give  those  interested  parties,  including  many 
members  of  this  House  who  have  indicated 
an  interest  in  certain  technical  aspects  of  the 
bill,  including  the  hon.  member  for  St. 
George,  the  communities,  the  building  in- 
spectors, the  various  technical  and  profes- 
sional associations,  an  opportunity  to  study  it 
in  the  light  of  the  legislation.  Then  I  would 
think  that  the  place  where  it  should  be  de- 
bated would  probably  be  a  standing  com- 
mittee of  the  House,  in  order  that  we  can 
have  the  advantage  of  listening  to  these  par- 
ticular interest  groups,  and  at  that  time  the 
parts  of  the  legislation  or  the  regulations  deal- 
ing with  ramps  and  this  sort  of  thing  would 
well  form  the  subject  matter  of  that  dis- 
cussion. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park.  ^ 


PHYSIOTHERAPISTS'  FEES 

Mr.  Shulman:   Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  of 
the  Minister  of  Health:  In  view  of  the  very 


large  increases  that  he  has  given  to  the 
physicians  and  to  everybody  who  works  for 
his  ministry  since  1966,  why  does  his  ministry 
flatly  refuse  to  give  any  raise  to  the  physio- 
therapists and  has  held  their  pay  at  the  same 
level  for  the  last  nine  years? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller  (Minister  of  Health): 
Mr.  Speaker,  the  hon.  member  for  High  Park 
appears  to  be  applying  his  interest  in  pre- 
ventive medicine  and  has  switched  "an  apple 
a  day"  for  "a  question  a  day,"  which  seems 
to  be  having  even  a  greater  eflFect  upon  my 
constitution. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  minister  had  better 
answer  the  question. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Does  the  minister  have  a  care- 
fully prepared  preamble  for  every  question? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  And  for  every  answer 
given. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  It's  nice  to  be  able  to 
count  on  something  from  the  opposition— and 
the  one  thing  I  can  count  on  is  a  question  a 
day. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  minister  would  atrophy 
otherwise. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Well,  not  too  long  ago 
a  study  was  made— I  believe  by  a  consulting 
firm— of  the  fees  paid  to  physiotherapists.  At 
that  point  in  time  it  was  agreed  that  the  $3.50 
rate— which  I  believe  is  now  the  rate  paid  to 
them  for  a  service  rendered  in  their  oiEces— 
was  in  fact  giving  them  an  ample  return  on 
their  time  and  investment  on  the  basis  upon 
which  those  services  were  currently  given.  In 
other  words,  they  are  not  unique  to  one 
patient  in  the  main.  They  usually  are  treating 
a  number  of  patients  simultaneously.  Now, 
that  is  not  to  say  that  it  went  on  to  cover 
home  treatments:  but  it  did  cover  those 
granted  in  the  oflBces. 

Mr.   Givens:   Supplementary,   Mr.   Speaker. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Supplementary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park  should  be  entitled  to  the  first  supplemen- 
tary. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Thank  you.  How  can  the 
minister  possibly  justify  his  statement  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  his  own  department  has 
raised  the  physiotherapy  rates  in  hospitals 
during  that  time?  The  Workmen's  Compensa- 
tion Board  has  raised  the  physiotherapy  rates, 
and  yet  the  minister  has  remained  adamant 
that  $3.50,  which  was  an  adequate  fee  in 
1966,  is  still  an  adequate  fee  today. 


MARCH  11,  1974 


119 


Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  simply  said  that  it  was 
not  us  who  arrived  at  that  conclusion,  but 
a  team  of  people  hired  to  study  it. 

Mr.  Shulman:   It  was  the  minister's  team. 

Mr.  E.  R.  Good  (Waterloo  North):  Sup- 
plementary, 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Water- 
loo North. 

Mr.  Good:  Is  there  truth  in  the  statement 
that  has   been  made  on  numerous  occasions 

}  that  the  Ministry  of  Health  would  like  to  see 
the    private   practice   of   physiotherapy   elim- 

i.  inated,  and  have  all  this  work  done  in  his- 
pitals?  And  is  this  why  the  ministry  has 
refused  to  raise  their  rates  for  the  past  nine 
years? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  No,  I  don't  think  so,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Shulman:  Supplementary:  Is  it  fair 
that  because  of  the  ministry's  refusal  to  raise 
the  rates,  physiotherapists  are  no  longer  able 
to  make  home  visits? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I'm  not  going  to  say  that 
I'm  aware  of  that,  because  I'm  not  positively 
aware  of  it.  But  I  would  be  glad  to  look  at 
this.  And  in  fact  I'm  sure  very  shortly  well 
be  looking  at  many  of  the  monetary  ramifica- 
tions within  the  ministry. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Monetary  ramifications! 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Perth. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  learned  that  from  the 
leader  of  the  NDP. 


Mr.   EdighofiFer:    Supplementary:    Will  the 
minister  find  out  and  reply? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  wiU  be  glad  to. 

Mr.     Speaker:     The     hon.     member     for 
Thunder  Bay. 


HYDRO  BOARD  APPOINTMENTS 

Mr.  Stokes:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  I 
have  a  question  of  the  Premier.  Has  the 
Premier  been  approached  concerning  the  dis- 
satisfaction over  people  residing  in  north- 
western Ontario  —  particularly  the  Ontario 
Municipal  Electric  Association— because  of  the 
failure  on  behalf  of  the  government  to  appoint 
somebody  to  the  new  Hydro  board?  And  will 
he  pay  heed  to  their  request  to  see  that  some- 
body from  northwestern  Ontario  is  repre- 
sented on  that  board? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  13th  appointment. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  there 
were  some  observations  made  on  this.  Of 
course,  there  is  a  gentleman  there  who  I 
would  certainly  not  say  is  from  the  north- 
west. There  is  a  representative  recommended 
by  the  OMEA  from  Sault  Ste.  Marie,  if 
memory  serves  me  correctly.  But  it  was 
brought  to  my  attention  that  the  people  in 
the  northwest  don't  really  regard  Sault  Ste. 
Marie  as  being  the  north.  That  has  been 
brought  to  my  attention. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Wel- 
lington South  is  next. 


VEHICLES  ON  CONSIGNMENT 

Mr.  H.  EdighofiFer  ( Perth ) :  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Com- 
mercial Relations. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That  kind  of  verbal  flow- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  EdighofiFer:  Does  the  Motor  Vehicle 
Dealers  Act  allow  the  registrar  to  issue  a 
directive  prohibiting  a  dealer  to  place  on  his 
premises  a  vehicle  on  consignment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  I  am  sorry— a  vehicle 
on  consignment? 

Mr.  EdighofiFer:  Yes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Clement:  No,  I  am  not  aware 
whether  he  is  permitted  to  attach  a  condition 
referring  to  that  matter  or  not.  I'm  just  not 
aware  of  it. 


CORRECTIONAL  CENTRE  TRAINING 

Mr.  H.  Worton  (Wellington  South):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  question  of  the  Minister 
of  Correctional  Services.  In  the  Speech  from 
the  Throne  there  was  a  statement  made  that 
inmates  of  the  correctional  centres  were 
going  to  be  employed  in  industries  located 
in  the  institution  in  which  they  are  resident. 
In  light  of  the  fact  that  they  will  be  paid 
wages,  what  steps  has  the  minister  taken  to 
ensure  that  these  people  will  be  given  the 
opportunity  to  vote  in  provincial  elections 
or  federal   elections    as   taxpayers? 

Hon.  R.  T.  Potter  (Minister  of  Correctional 
Services):  Mr.  Speaker,  at  the  present  time 
negotiations  have  been  going  on  with  one 
or  two  abattoirs  in  the  province,  as  the  hon. 
member  is  probably  aware,  asking  for  pro- 
posals for  them— in  the  case  of  one  institu- 
tion in  particular  in  Guelph— to  operate  the 


120 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


abattoir  in  Guelph  as  a  private  abattoir 
would  be  operated,  employing  residents  of 
the  institution  and  paying  them  the  salaries 
they  would  be  expected  to  pay  in  the 
private  sector.  They  in  turn  would  pay  $20 
a  week,  I  think  it  is,  room  and  board  and 
the  rest  of  the  pay  would  be  available  to 
them  to  send  home  to  keep  their  families. 

It  is  still  at  the  negotiating  stage.  We  are 
hoping  it  will  be  successful  because  if  it  is 
we  will  be  one  of  the  first  countries  in  the 
world  to  implement  a  scheme  such  as  this. 
As  you  know,  there  have  been  programmes 
attempted  in  which  token  money  was  used, 
but  this  is  the  first  time  that  this  type  of 
an  enterprise  has  been  considered. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Went- 
worth. 


RESALE  OF  HOME  PROGRAMME 
HOUSES 

Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Housing.  Is  the  minister 
aware  of  a  practice  which  is  developing 
whereby  HOME  programme  houses  built  not 
more  than  six  months  ago  have  been  offered 
for  sale  on  the  free  market  at  a  price  almost 
100  per  cent  higher  than  the  price  at  the 
time  of  the  original  sale? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  No,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  am  not  aware  of  the  practice  and  if  the 
hon.  member  would  send  me  some  details 
I  would  be  pleased  to  look  into  it.  It  was 
my  understanding  that  steps  had  been  taken 
to  remove  the  speculation  from  resale  of 
Home  Ownership  units. 

Mr.  Deans:  Will  the  minister  make  him- 
self aware  of  the  fact  that  certain  realtors 
are  approaching  Ontario  Housing  Corp.  with 
an  eye  to  getting  permission  to  sell  these 
homes,  sold  originally  for  less  than  $20,000, 
for  a  list  price  of  some  $41,000  on  the  free 
market  today,  and  that  it  requires  some 
kind  of  chicanery  behind  the  scenes  in 
order  to   get  the   down  payment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker.  I 
would  be  glad  to  make  myself  aware  of  this, 
but  if  the  hon.  member  has  any  details  I 
would  be  pleased   to   hear  from   him. 


Mr.     Speaker: 
Waterloo  North. 


The     hon.     member     for 


PROVINCIAL  PARK  AT  PAPINEAU 
LAKE 

Mr.  Good:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Natural  Resources  regarding  his 
announcement  of  a  provincial  park  on 
Papineau  Lake  which  was  made  in  January, 
I  believe: 

Does  the  minister  have  environmental 
studies  of  that  area,  in  view  of  the  facts  that 
90  per  cent  of  this  lake  is  already  built  up 
and  that  there  is  a  water  resources  com- 
mission report  of  1971  stating  that  the 
fecal  streptococcus  count  now  exceeds  what 
it  should  in  that  particular  lake? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  to 
answer  yes  to  those  questions.  I  would  point 
out  to  the  hon.  member  that  the  demand  for 
recreational  opportunity  is  growing  at  a  rate 
of  10  per  cent  per  year,  particularly  in 
southern  Ontario,  and  my  own  ministry  is 
having  diSiculty  meeting  this  objective.  We 
carry  out  some  very  close  and  sound  and,  I 
think,  effective  planning  in  locating  just 
where  these  new  parks  should  be. 

At  the  present  time  we  are  dealing  with 
the  Papineau  Lake  situation  and  we  are  work- 
ing on  a  master  plan  for  the  area.  There  will 
be  public  meetings  held  in  that  particular 
area  where  the  public  can  be  involved.  We 
have  met  with  the  council  and  we  are  wait- 
ing comments  from  the  local  planning  area, 
but  in  all  this  certainly  we  take  into  con- 
sideration the  environmental  aspects  and  the 
Ministry  of  the  Environment  does  comment 
and  we  have  their  comments,  which  I  will 
table. 

Mr.  Good:  A  final  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Could  the  minister  make  public  his 
study  of  the  environmental  impact  the  park 
will  have  on  this  lake,  in  view  of  this  adverse 
study  that  was  done  on  the  water  quality  in 
1971?  Has  the  condition  changed  in  that 
time?  This  is  what  I  am  concerned  about. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  have 
prepared  a  very  in-depth  report  and  an  out- 
line on  the  planning  of  this  particular  park  to 
date.  I  would  be  glad  to  make  this  iirforma- 
tion  avaifeble  to  the  member. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  Chairman  of  the  Man- 
agement Board  has  an  answer  dealing  with  a 
previous  question. 


NEGOTIATIONS  ON  BEHALF 
OF  COMMUNITY  COLLEGES 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  thank  you 
verv  much.  I  want  to  make  a  correction  to  an 


MARCH  11,  1974 


121 


I 


answer  that  I  gave  on  Friday  to  the  hon. 
member  for  Windsor  West  on  the  ques- 
tion as  to  whether  certain  items  in  dispute 
between  the  Council  of  Regents  and  the  com- 
munity colleges  are  bargainable.  It  is  at  this 
moment  in  the  hands  of  Judge  Little.  I  in- 
advertently said  in  the  hands  of  Judge  Ander- 
son, and  I  would  ask  that  the  record  be 
changed  accordingly. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  time  has  now  expired  for 
oral  questions. 

Petitions. 

Presenting  reports. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  with  a 
great  deal  of  pleasure  that  I  present  to  the 
House  today  three  reports  of  the  Ontario  Law 
Reform  Commission  dealing  with  family  law 
—the  Report  on  Family  Property  Law,  the 
Report  on  Children  and  the  Report  on  Family 
Courts.  The  receipt  of  these  three  reports, 
taken  together  with  the  earlier  reports  in  the 
family  law  series,  means  that  we  are  now  in 
possession  of  sufficient  Law  Reform  Com- 
mission material  in  this  complex  area  of  law 
to  begin  to  consider  appropriate  legislative 
measures. 

The  Report  on  Family  Property  Law  is  a 
very  significant  document.  It  analyses  the 
situation  that  has  occurred  in  the  law  of  On- 
tario and  other  common  law  jurisdictions  in 
which  the  traditional  legal  concepts  relating 
to  the  division  of  property  between  spouses 
meed  to  be  reconsidered  in  the  light  of  the 
major  social  and  economic  changes  of  the 
20th  century.  This  report  suggests  that  the 
legislative  task  before  us  not  only  requires 
changes  in  details  of  that  law  but  also  con- 
.videration  of  changes  in  some  fundamental 
and  well-entrenched  legal  principles. 

I  am  very  happy  that  Mr.  Allan  Leal,  the 
chairman  of  the  Ontario  Law  Reform  Com- 
mission is  in  the  House  today,  and  indeed  will 
be  available  to  explain  to  thoSe  interested 
anything  in  connection  with  these  reports. 

Throughout  the  report,  two  things  persist, 
Mr.  Speaker.  First,  that  the  law  should  recog- 
nize the  individiual  rights  of  husbands  and 
wives  during  a  marriage,  even  though  they 
are  united  by  the  marriage  contract.  Secondly, 
if  a  marriage  breaks  down,  the  law  should 
ensure  the  equality  of  the  spouses  in  the  dis- 
tribution of  marital  property,  unless  the 
spouses  agree  to  their  own  format  of  distribu- 
tion. 

The  commission  proposed  a  wide  range  of 
specific  reforms  dealing  with  testate  and 
intestate  succession,  support  obligations*  and 
agency  relations,  marriage  contracts,  separa- 


tion agreements,  joint  bank  accounts  and  a 
host  of  other  matters  where  the  common  law 
developed  and  applied  by  our  courts  does  not 
appear  to  have  kept  pace  in  all  respects  with 
the  social  reahty  increasingly  perceived  by 
many  of  our  people. 

Statute  law  that  retains  a  common  law 
base  did  not  escape  criticism  and  proposals 
for  reform  either.  The  commission  discussed 
in  this  connection  the  Married  Women's 
Property  Act,  the  Deserted  Wives  and  Chil- 
dren's Maintenance  Act,  the  Devolution  of 
Estates  Act,  the  Dependants'  Relief  Act,  the 
Dower  Act,  the  Matrimonial  Causes  Act  and 
many  others. 

Perhaps,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  most  significant 
recommendation  in  this  report,  in  addition 
to  the  recommendations  for  updating  the  his- 
torical approach  of  the  common  law,  are  the 
proposals  for  co-ownership  of  the  matri- 
monial home  and  for  equalization  of  prop- 
erty upon  divorce  or  marriage  breakdown. 
What  is  recommended  is  that  each  spouse 
would  be  entitled  to  occupy  the  home  and 
to  use  its  furnishings,  regardless  of  the  ques- 
tion of  legal  title;  and  in  certain  circum- 
stances such  as  divorce,  the  equity  of  the 
family  home  would  be  shared  between  the 
spouses. 

Another  recommendation  of  the  commis- 
sion is  the  establishment  of  a  new  property 
system  for  married  persons  in  Ontario.  Ac- 
cording to  the  commission's  recommenda- 
tion, the  value  of  all  property  acquired  by 
either  partner  after  the  date  of  the  marriage 
would  be  shared  evenly  between  the  spouses 
upon  death,  divorce  or  marriage  breakdown. 

Although  there  are  some  aspects  of  the 
Report  on  Family  Property  Law  that  are 
independent,  I  would  stress  that  a  great 
many  of  the  proposed  reforms  appear  inter- 
related and  thus  probably  cannot  be  treated 
in  isolation.  The  effects  of  the  recommended 
changes  will  be  profound  and  there's  no 
greater  responsibility  at  this  point  than  that 
borne  by  everyone  who  would  be  affected 
by  these  changes,  and  this  means  most  adult 
persons  in  Ontario,  who  should  be  encour- 
aged, as  indeed  the  member  for  St.  George 
indicated  in  her  question,  to  come  to  grips 
with  the  implications  and  the  consequences 
of  this  report,  to  discuss  them  and  to  respond 
to  them. 

Officials  of  my  ministry  will  of  course  be 
giving  the  report  intensive  study.  But  at  the 
same  time  as  we  are  considering  what  steps 
are  required  to  introduce  the  major  concep- 
tual and  practical  changes  that  are  entailed 
in  this  report,  I  believe  that  I  have  a  clear 


122 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


obligation  to  encourage  a  thorough  public 
discussion  of  these  matters, 

A  recent  Gallup  poll  disclosed  that  63  per 
cent  of  people  in  Canada  favoured,  as  an 
abstract  proposition,  some  sort  of  property 
sharing  in  divorce.  We  now  have  a  concrete 
proposal,  and  I  would  like  to  have  the  views 
of  the  people  of  Ontario  on  it. 

The  second  report  of  the  Ontario  Law 
Reform  Commission  tabled  today  is  its  report 
on  the  law  of  children.  This  is  another  area 
still  largely  governed  by  the  common  law 
and  one  that  is  also  in  need  of  meaningful 
change.  One  basic  reform  proposed  by  the 
commission  is  that  the  common  law  discrim- 
ination against  illegitimate  children  should 
be  purged  from  all  aspects  of  the  law  in  this 
province.  The  word  "illegitimate"  itself 
should  no  longer  be  used. 

Almost  a  quarter  of  the  report  is  devoted 
to  detailing  the  way  in  which  children  bom 
outside  of  marriage  are,  and  have  been  for 
centuries,  the  victims  of  insidious  and  unfair 
rules  whereby  property  and  inheritance  inter- 
ests were  consistently  allowed  to  override  the 
simple  requirements  of  ordinary  humanity 
towards  children. 

I  must  say  that  the  case  made  by  the  com- 
mission for  reform  in  this  area  is  compelling 
and  we  will  dedicate  considerable  effort  to 
finding  the   appropriate   legislative   solutions. 

In  addition,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  report  gives 
detailed  attention  to  the  law  of  adoption, 
the  law  dealing  with  children  in  need  of 
care  and  protection,  and  the  law  of  guardian- 
ship and  custody  of  children.  Here,  the  com- 
mission emphasizes  that  the  only  question 
that  should  be  before  the  courts  is  what  is 
in  the  best  interests  of  the  child.  Regrettably, 
some  areas  of  the  statute  and  common  law 
do  not  make  it  clear  that  what  is  in  the  best 
interests  of  a  child  is  what  the  law  should 
do.  The  commission  recommends  that  in  these 
areas  changes  should  be  made. 

The  third  report  of  the  Law  Reform  Com- 
mission tabled  today  is  the  report  on  the 
family  courts.  And  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  Ontario  now  has  the  finest  family  court 
system  in  Canada,  if  not  in  the  Common- 
wealth. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  In  the  universe!  Come  on, 
Bob,  don't  be  diminutive. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  It  is  equally  true,  how- 
ever, that  there  is  much  that  can  be  done  to 
strengthen  this  court  that  deals  with  so  vital 
an  aspect  of  our  society  as  the  family.  All 
courts  are  important,  but  the  family  court 
is  unique  in  the  valuable   contribution  that 


it  makes  to  the  community  in  dealing  with 
family  relations. 

The  basic  reform  proposal  in  this  report 
is  that  there  should  be  a  single  court  in 
which  all  family  law  matters  are  dealt  with. 
At  present,  family  law  jurisdiction  is  exer- 
cised in  the  Supreme  Coiu-t,  the  county  court 
and  the  surrogate  court,  as  well  as  in  the 
family  division  of  the  provincial  court.  The 
reasons  for  this  are  partly  historical  and 
traditional  and  partly  constitutional. 

The  proposal  of  the  Law  Reform  Commis- 
sion for  a  single  family  court  with  integrated 
jurisdiction  will,  along  with  the  other  recom- 
mendations of  the  commission,  receive  very 
careful  study  and  consideration  by  ofiicials 
of  my  ministry  and,  I  hope,  by  members  of 
the  profession  and,  indeed,  the  public  as 
well. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Get  the  legislation  ready. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  And  so,  Mr.  Speaker, 
all  in  all,  the  Ontario  Law  Reform  Com- 
mission has  given  the  government  and  the 
people  of  Ontario  a  substantial  amount  of 
sophisticated  and  professional  analysis  in 
these  three  reports.  I  believe  that  from 
these  reports  and  the  public  discussions 
they  will  no  doubt  engender  we  will  be 
able  to  move  toward  a  new  and  better 
system  of  family  law  that  will,  we  hope,  be 
recognized  as  the  finest  in  the  world.  In- 
deed, no  government  could  have  a  higher 
goal  than  this. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Do  they  do  that  compulsively? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
been  given  a  report  by  the  Minister  of 
Education  which  has  associated  with  it  a 
proposal  to  bring  to  a  conclusion  the  dispute 
between  the  York  County  Board  of  Education 
and  District  11  of  the  OSSTF. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  pursuant 
to  the  provisions  of  section  5  of  the  Ex- 
propriations Act,  being  the  Revised  Statutes 
of  Ontario  1970,  chapter  154,  I  lay  before 
the  assembly  a  copy  of  the  order  of  the 
Lieutenant  Governor  in  Council  dated  Jan. 
9,  1974,  made  under  subsection  (3)  of  the 
said  section. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Is  that  in  relation  to  Picker- 
ing or  somewhere  else? 

Mr.  Lewis:  Is  that  Cedarwood? 


Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Cedarwood. 

Mr.   Lewis:   That's  been  scrubbed,   hasn't 


it? 


MARCH  11,  1974 


123 


Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  It  has  to  be  tabled  before 
the  House. 

Hon.  D.  R.  Irvine  (Minister  without  Port- 
folio): Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  table 
a  copy  of  the  report  of  the  joint  study  group 
on  the  investment  policies  of  the  Ontario 
Municipal  Employees'  Retirement  System. 
Copies  of  the  report  are  being  distributed 
to  members  of  the  House  and  representatives 
of  organizations  and  groups  participating  in 
OMERS.  On  behalf  of  the  Treasurer  (Mr. 
White),  I  would  like  to  thank  the  members 
of  the  study  group  for  their  work  and  in- 
vite public  comments  which  will  assist  him 
and  the  OMERS  board  in  reviewing  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Motions. 

Introduction  of  bills. 

The  hon.  member  for  York-Forest  Hill. 


PROTECTION  OF  HOUSE  BUYERS 
ACT 

Mr.  Givens  moves  first  reading  of  bill  in- 
tituled, An  Act  to  provide  for  the  Protection 
of  House  Buyers. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Long  needed.  Long 
needed.  About  time. 

An  hon.  member:  Good  bill. 

Mr.  Givens:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  not  a 
very  dramatic  title  for  a  bill  which  I  think 
is  long  overdue.  I  think  the  law  of  caveat 
emptor  should  be  relegated  to  the  scrap- 
heap  because  it's  outlived  its  usefulness. 

This  bill  will  provide  for  house  buyers 
the  protection  which  they  have  when  they 
buy  the  simplest  electrical  device  or  the 
simplest  appliance  today.  It  sets  up  a 
commission  and  requires  that  houses  should 
be  built  in  accordance  with  minimum 
standards  of  the  Ontario  Building  Code, 
and  the  minister  today  said  he  was  waiting 
for  the  federal  minister  to  bring  in  such 
a  bill.  This  is  my  conception  of  what  the 
bill  should  be. 

It  will  require  that  a  house  be  inspected 
at  least  four  times  during  the  course  of 
construction.  It  will  protect  buyers  from 
hidden  defects,  latent  defects,  for  a  period 
of  five  years,  and  from  patent  defects, 
obvious  defects,  for  a  period  of  one  year. 
It  will  require  the  vendor  to  list  all  the 
defects  on  the  agreement  of  purchase  and 
sale   of  a  house.   It  will  provide  for   griev- 


ances to  be  heard  by  the  commission  and 
the  commissioner  which  this  bill  purports  to 
set  up  and  it  will  provide  for  an  insurance 
fund  into  which  all  builders  must  con- 
tribute in  the  event  that  a  builder  may  not 
be  able  to  compensate  the  house  owner, 
such  as  in  the  case  of  bankruptcy.  I  com- 
mend this  bill  to  the  members  of  the  House. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Mr.  Speaker,  before  the 
orders  of  the  day,  I  want  to  present  a 
petition  to  the  government  of  Ontario  signed 
in  the  past- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  I  thought  the 
hon.  member  had  a  bill  to  introduce.  I 
should  perhaps  determine  for  certain  that 
there  are  no  further  bills  to  be  introduced. 
Are  there  any  other  bills  to  be  introduced? 
If  not,  the  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Deacon:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  present 
this  petition,  signed  in  the  past  two  days  only 
by  7,309  voters  of  York  county  who  are  re- 
questing that  the  Government  of  Ontario  set 
up  a  trusteeship  in  York  county  to  get  the 
schools  into  full  operation.  I  hope  the  minis- 
ter will  indicate  how  many  more  voters'  sig- 
natures he  will  need  to  satisfy  him  that  this 
is  the  action  the  people  want  to  resolve  the 
impasse.  This  petition  is  not,  in  any  sense, 
to  be  considered  a  condemnation  of  the 
trustees  of  York  but  rather  as  the  best  solu- 
tion now  available  to  get  the  schools  into 
operation  forthwith. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Orders  of  the  day. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  The  first  order,  re- 
suming the  adjourned  debate  on  the  amend- 
ment to  the  motion  for  an  address  in  reply 
to  the  speech  of  the  Honourable  the  Lieu- 
tenant Governor  at  the  opening  of  the 
session. 


THRONE  SPEECH  DEBATE 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  shall  try  to  be  entirely  to  the  point 
this  afternoon. 

I  begin,  sir,  along  with  everyone  else  in  the 
House,  in  expressing  personal  pleasure  at 
your  presence,  your  continued  presence  in 
the  chair.  Not  that  one— well,  one  did  doubt 
it  for  a  moment  or  two,  perhaps,  at  one 
point— but  you  are  back,  you  are  there;  and 
you  have  displayed  equanimity,  joviality  and 
impartiality  on  almost  every  instance  that  I 
can  recall— save  one,  and  that  is  when  you 
disagreed  with  me.  In  all  such  circumstances, 
sir,  we  are  glad  to  see  you  back  and  wish 


124 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


you  long  tenure— at  least  until  the  life  of 
this  parliament  is  over. 

I  want  to  deal  very  briefly,  Mr.  Speaker, 
with  the  York  county  dispute,  simply  because 
it  is  appropriate  that  it  be  done  right  now 
when  things  are  moving  toward  a  clear  crisis. 
I  suppose  some  would  characterize  the  pres- 
ent situation  as  a  crisis.  But  we  are  moving 
to  evident  breakdown  and  a  solution  which 
may  be  entirely  unpalatable. 

I  have  looked  at  the  document  which  the 
minister  has  tabled.  Would  that  he  had  made 
some  kind  of  legitimate  recommendation  to 
both  parties  some  considerable  time  ago.  It 
would  have  carried  more  weight  than  it  does 
at  the  11th  hour  and  it  would  have  carried 
more  weight  than  it  does  when  it  comes  in 
the  form  of  an  ultimatum. 

I  can  understand  why  the  teachers  respond 
as  they  do.  They  have  been  bargaining  with 
a  group  that  has  bargained  in  bad  faith  from 
the  outset;  and  then  suddenly  the  minister 
has  chosen  to  take  sides.  That  is  what  really 
has  happened  now  in  the  York  county  dis- 
pute; the  minister  has  taken  sides.  He  has 
taken  sides  with  the  board  against  the  tea- 
chers. 

There  is  a  very  neat  clause  in  section  11  in 

the  tentative  proposal  put  to  them  both  that 

will  obviously  inspire  enormous  apprehension 

in  the  minds  of  the  teachers.  Section  11  says: 

The    board     of    arbitration    shall    remain 

seized  of  and  may  deal  with  all  matters  in 

dispute  under  paragraph  one  between  the 

parties  until  a  final  and  binding  agreement 

is  in  effect  between  the  parties. 

Well,  the  use  of  the  word  "may"  leaves  it 
open  to  the  board  of  arbitration  to  do  what 
boards  of  arbitration  frequently  do,  which  is 
to  refuse  to  accept  certain  non-monetary 
items  and  certain  working  conditions  as  nego- 
tiable, contractual  clauses.  And  the  whole 
point  of  the  teachers  in  York  county— what 
they  have  rested  their  case  on  from  the  out- 
set—is not  a  matter  of  salaries  but  is  a  matter 
of  working  conditions;  primarily  pupil- 
teacher  ratio  and  class  size.  And  what  this 
document  says  to  the  teachers  is  very  simply, 
"we  will  not  guarantee  that  an  arbitration 
board  will  rule  on  class  size  or  pupil-teacher 
ratio."  It  may  if  it  wishes  to.  It  may  abandon 
it  if  it  wishes  to.  The  document,  therefore, 
has  a  fatal  Achilles'  heel  in  the  minds  of  the 
teachers.  And  I  can  understand  why  they  will 
now  feel  betrayed  by  the  Minister  of  Educa- 
tion (Mr.  Wells);  just  as  they  have  felt  be- 
trayed by  the  board. 

Now  this  caucus,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  not  to 
play    the    parliamentary    niceties    game    of 


looking  on  the  board  with  charity  and  talk- 
ing about  whether  or  not  they  have  been 
responsible.  That  York  county  board  is  so 
irresponsible  it  deserves  to  be  turfed  out;  or 
all  of  the  members  who  have  been  intransi- 
gent deserve  to  be  turfed  out  in  a  way  that 
they  wouldn't  even  save  their  deposit  in  a 
federal  or  so-called  provincial  election  cam- 
paign. 

I  have  never  seen  a  board  argue  in  such 
bad  faith  from  day  one.  That  board,  when  it 
entered  negotiations,  didn't  want  to  recog- 
nize the  York  county  OSSTF  as  a  bargaining 
agent.  Now,  I  mean  how  do  you  start  nego- 
tiations on  that  basis  and  expect  to  induce 
any  kind  of  free  and  open  and  supportive 
collective  bargaining  atmosphere?  And  frank- 
ly, when  the  member  from  York  Centre  says 
that  he  wants  the  board  taken  into  trustee- 
ship, but  that  that  shouldn't  reflect  on  the 
capacities  of  the  board— well,  that  is  mental 
gymnastics. 

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  The 
voters  will  do  that. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  I  hope  the  voters  do  do 
that.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  think  the  voters 
feel  very  strongly. 

Mr.  Deacon:  They  are  going  to  decide, 
providing  there  is  an  election. 

Mr.  Lewis:  No,  the  member  doesn't  have 
to  provide  an  election. 

Mr.  Deacon:  It  is  not  up  to  the  leader  of 
the  NDP  to  sit  in  judgement. 

Mr.  Lewis:  For  people  who  believe  so 
strongly  in  local  autonomy,  the  Liberals  play 
fast  and  loose  with  it. 

The  fact  of  the  matter  is,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
there  is  no  reason  in  the  world  why  the 
Minister  of  Education  could  not  arrange  to 
do  the  bargaining  by  way  of  legislation  if  he 
needs  it  in  the  case  of  the  teachers. 

Mr.  Deacon:  He  doesn't  need  it. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Allow  the  board  to  continue. 
The  voters  will  deal  with  the  board,  if  they 
so  choose  at  the  election.  That  is  up  to  the 
voters,  I  agree. 

I  am  not  so  interested  in  the  formal  appli- 
cation of  trusteeship.  That  is  a  precedent 
that  worries  me  almost  as  much  as  compulsory 
arbitration  worries  the  rest  of  us. 

Mr.   Deacon:   They  have  used  it  before. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Eut  in  fact  that  is  what  it  looks 
as  though  we  are  headed  for.  In  this  case, 
the  Minister  of  Education  didn't  even  with- 


MARCH  11,  1974 


125 


draw  the  grants.  At  least  in  the  Windsor 
board  last  year  they  withdrew  the  grants, 
which  was  a  considerable  incentive  to  settle- 
ment. 

What  you  see  here  is  a  carefully  calculated 
rhythm  towards  the  guillotine  falling  tomor- 
row or  the  next  day.  That's  what's  the  strategy 
now  is.  That's  what  emerges,  because  the 
board  bargained  in  bad  faith,  and  the  minister 
knows  it.  The  minister  has  confided  as  much 
in  confidence  to  those  who  have  talked  with 
him  privately. 

I  think— let  me  put  it  this  way— that  the 
Minister  of  Education  is  as  fed  to  the  teeth 
with  the  behaviour  of  the  York  county  board 
as  is  any  member  who  has  had  anything  to 
do  with  them  or  any  member  of  the  public 
w'  o  has  been  able  to  witness  it. 

What  you've  got  is  bad  faith  bargaining 
from  the  outset,  intractability  on  working  con- 
ditions; refusal  of  the  minister  to  make  a 
recommendation  until  the  11th  hour,  and  then 
with  a  very  severe  deadline  threat  hanging 
over  it;  refusal  of  the  minister  to  appropriate 
the  negotiating  process  from  the  board,  settlfe 
on  an  agreement  and  then  reinstate  the  board. 

The  teachers  say,  and  the  teachers  are  right, 
how  do  you  arbitrate  human  relationships? 
How  are  we  ever  going  to  resolve  the  anath- 
ema which  has  developed  between  the  board 
an^  the  teachers  if  they  are  forced  to  com- 
pulsory arbitration?  How  is  that  going  to 
handle  it?  How  are  those  teachers  going  to  be 
forced  back  to  work?  How  are  you  going  to 
resolve  the  antagonism  between  the  teachers 
and  the  director  of  education  in  York  cbunty 
under  such  circumstances? 

It  may  serve  the  government  to  invite  con- 
f'ontation  on  this  instance  in  order  to  pave 
ithe  road  for  Bill  275,  but  this  is  a  very  care- 
fully manipulated  process,  Mr.  Speaker.  No 
one,  should  engage  in  the  naivety  and  self- 
delusion  that  I  often  engage  in,  thinking 
that  maybe  the  Tories  really  don't  want  to 
force  the  issue.  Well,  I  think  now  they  do. 

I  think  the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis)  in  his  in- 
cessant repetition  today  about  the  five  weeks 
indicates  that  they  had  their  time  parameter. 
Then  they  could  go  to  the  province  and  say, 
"You  see  the  axe  had  to  fall  in  York  county 
an-1   that's  why  it  has  to  fall  in  Bill  275." 

What  does  that  mean  for  collective  bar- 
gaining for  the  teachers  in  Ontario?  What 
that  means  is  very  simple.  Everything  will 
ffo  to  compulsory  arbitration  hereafter,  and 
the  relationships,  the  human  relationships, 
the  teaching  relationships,  the  personal  rela- 
tions between  teachers  and  board  in  one  board 


after  another  across  tliis  province  will'  be  im- 
paired. 

I  appeal  to  the  minister.  I  know  he  is 
meeting  now  with  the  Premier.  He  is  meet- 
ing with  the  member  for  York  North  ( Mr.  W. 
Hodgson).  He  will  doubtless  be  meeting  with 
others  during  the  day.  I  appeal  to  him  and 
to  the  cabinet  to  draw  back  from  the  preci- 
pice, to  take  those  negotiations  over  and  settle 
with  the  teachers  and  by  their  example  to 
demonstrate  to  the  York  county  board  that 
collective  bargaining  can  work,  if  it  is  fol- 
lowed in  good  faith  and  then  left  to  the 
electors  of  York  county  to  deal  with  those 
trustees  in  the  next  campaign. 

That's  the  way  to  do  it.  But  not  to  bring 
in  compulsory  arbitration,  not  to  resort  to 
those  extremes,  because  the  damage  that  is 
done  to  the  system  isn't  immediately  appar- 
ent, but  it  is  evident  to  everyone. 

It's  done  to  kids;  it's  done  to  teachers. 
Who  knows  which  of  the  teachers  will  return 
or  why?  I  haven't  even  discussed  with  my 
colleagues  from  Lakeshore  and  Riverdale  the 
legal  niceties,  the  mind-bogghng  legal  niceties 
of  how  those  who  resigned  will  be  reinstated, 
whether  it  will  be  retroactive,  whether  the 
resignations  will  again  be  delayed  by  legisla- 
tion. The  complexities  are  almost  beyond 
handhng.  It  needn't  come  to  this;  it  simply 
n=;edn't  come  to  this. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  deal  with  the 
Throne  Speech,  but  not  at  length  in  terms 
of  every  one  of  its  clauses.  I  want  to  deal 
with  it  in  the  context  of  one  paragraph  arid 
one  paragraph  alone,  which  seems  to  me  to 
be  central  to  the  Throne  Speech  and  seems 
to  all  my  NDP  colleagues  to  be  central  to 
the  Throne  Speech— so  central  that  I  don't 
have  it  in  front  of  me.  If  somebody  has  a 
copy  of  the  Tlirone  Speech  I  wouldn't  mind 
one. 

It's  the  clause  which  deals  with  inflation, 
the  one  clause  which  deals  with  inflation.  It 

says: 

While  my  government  will  employ  all 
practical  means  at  its  disposal  to  alleviate 
the  causes  and  efi^ects  of  inflation,  never- 
theless it  bears  repeating  that  the  problem 
can  only  be  dealt  with  in  a  national  context 
with  all  governments  co-operating. 

That  one  paragraph  is  the  greatest  single  de- 
ficiency in  a  Throne  Speech  distinguished 
for  its  mediocrity.  That  one  paragraph  is  a 
kind  of  commentary  on  the  government  of 
William  Davis  over  the  last  diree  years.  As 
I  think  I  shall  try  to  show,  and  as  others  of 
my  colleagues  shall  try  to  show  as  this  Throne 
Debate  continues,   the  William   Davis  years, 


126 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


in  terms  of  that  single  issue  which  most  pre- 
occupies public  attention,  were  years  of  spec- 
ulation, inflation,  and  profiteering;  that  the 
public  burned  while  the  William  Davis 
cabinet  fiddled;  that  never  has  a  cabinet  so 
large  done  so  little  on  an  issue  so  great— and 
indeed  that  may  be  true  in  other  areas  but 
extremely  pronounced  in  this  one— that  no 
other  province  in  this  country  has  so  betrayed 
the  trust  of  its  citizens  in  deahng  with  basic 
matters  of  the  cost  of  living,  matters  which 
affect  the  daily  lives  of  the  people  of  Ontario; 
and  that  ultimately,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  our 
conviction  in  this  caucus  that  that's  what  will 
bring  the  government  down. 

It's  not  going  to  be  the  transgression,  so  it's 
called,  and  it's  not  going  to  be  the  gross 
indiscretions,  and  it's  not  going  to  be  the 
so-called  scandals  and  it's  not  even  going  to 
be  the  inadequacy  or  incompetence  of  in^vi- 
dual  ministers,  whomever  they  may  be;  but  it 
is  the  refusal  of  the  government  to  deal  with 
those  matters  which  are  absolutely  central  to 
the  way  in  which  people  live  their  lives.  And 
the  evidence  mounts,  the  documentation 
accumulates  and  it  is  now  clear  that  those 
are  the  grounds  on  which  the  electoral  out- 
come in  this  province  will  be  settled  18 
months  hence. 

The  Tories  have  taken  to  mind  the  old 
Churchillian  maxim  that  they  have  resolved 
to  be  irresolute.  Thev  start  with  inertia  in 
the  area  of  cost  of  living  and  they  end  with 
paralysis.  That's  the  history  of  governmental 
mobility  in  this  field;  and  it  is  most  imfortu- 
nate  that  that's  the  case  because  on  everyone's 
lips  is  the  question  of  the  cost  of  living. 

Now  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Leader  of  the 
Opposition  (Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon)  raised  matters 
pertaining  to  housing.  I  want  to  do  the  same 
but  in  a  slightly  different  context.  I  want  to 
tell  you  about  the  William  Davis  years,  Mr. 
Speaker,  because  I  want  to  put  most  of  my 
remarks  in  the  specific  dimensions,  the  spe- 
cific boundaries  of  the  period  during  which 
the  present  Premier  has  been  the  incumbent 
chief  minister.  And  I  want  to  steal  something 
from  my  colleague  from  Ottawa  Centre,  if 
he'll  forgive  me— I  presume  if  I  thieve  from 
him  it's  less  offensive  than  when  other  parties 
do— and  give  you  a  chronicle  in  the  housing 
field  of  what  has  happened  in  a  number  of 
areas  of  Ontario,  but  starting  first  with  To- 
ronto. 

Well,  in  March  of  1971,  which  seems  to 
be  a  reasonable  date  to  begin  with  since  the 
Premier  was  then  Premier,  the  average  To- 
ronto house  sale  price  was  $29,627.  One  year 
later  it  was  $31,357.  When  the  Comay  task 
force  was  set  up  it  had  already  jumped  to 


$34,137;  that  was  in  November  of  1972. 
When  the  Throne  Speech  came  down  last 
year  it  had  jumped  to  $34,718.  When  the 
present  Attorney  General  (Mr.  Welch)  was 
appointed  Minister  of  Housing,  it  had  leaped 
to  $44,022  on  the  average;  and  when  the 
current  Minister  of  Housing  (Mr.  Handleman) 
inherited  the  portfolio,  it  had  jumped  to 
$46,210. 

Within  the  life  of  the  premiership  of  Wil- 
liam Davis— I  guess  just  three  years  now— 
the  housing  increase  in  the  city  of  Toronto 
has  been  56  per  cent.  Now  that  may  be  an 
achievement  which  some  premiers  would 
cherish;  others  would  shudder  were  they  to 
realize  it. 

Let  me  tell  you  something  else  about 
what's  happening  in  the  Metro  Toronto  area, 
Mr.  Speaker,  as  the  research  department  of 
this  caucus  had  analysed  the  figures.  A  most 
extraordinary  acceleration  of  the  inflationary 
trends  in  every  area  has  occurred  in  the 
central  portion  of  the  Premier's  stewardship. 
He  became  Premier  in  March;  he  stopped 
Spadina  somewhere  along  the  way;  he  set 
himself  for  an  election  in  October,  1971— it 
was  October,  1971? 

Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  Right. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  have  blocked  it  all  out. 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  How  could  the 
member  forget? 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  certainly  do,  and  the  sooner 
I  forget  the  better.  Then  he  won  a  fairly 
considerable  mandate,  looking  at  the  way  in 
which  the  Tory  hordes  engulf  this  legislative 
chamber. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  They  slop  over  to  this 
side. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Slopping  over  is  not  as  digni- 
fied a  phrase,  although  perhaps  a  more  de- 
scriptive one. 

Mr.  Speaker,  one  would  assume  that  by 
the  years  1972  and  1973  in  particular,  the 
policies  introduced  and  undertaken  by  the 
Premier  of  Ontario  would  begin  to  be  felt. 
Well,  they  certainly  have;  they  certainly 
have. 

In  January,  1973,  65.3  per  cent  of  the 
houses  in  Metropolitan  Toronto  sold  for  less 
than  $35,000;  almost  two-thirds  of  all  house 
sales  were  for  less  than  $35,000.  By  Decem- 
ber, 1973— mark  this,  at  the  end  of  the  same 
year— only  27  per  cent  of  all  housing  trans- 
actions in  Metropolitan  Toronto  involved 
amounts  less  than  $35,000.  In  fact,  only  14.7 


MARCH  11,  1974 


127 


per  cent  of  houses  sold  sold  for  less  than 
$30,000. 

If  one  takes  the  median  family  income  in 
this  area  which  is  now  roughly  $12,000  a 
year,  and  if  one  assumes  what  most  reason- 
able housing  economists  assume,  that  one 
shouldn't  spend  more  than  25  per  cent  of 
gross  income  for  carrying  costs,  it  means, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  73  per  cent  of  those  who 
might  purchase  homes  are  now  excluded 
from  purchasing  them. 

The  great  bulk  of  people  who  earn  $12,000 
a  year  and  under,  that  is  somewhere  around 
70  per  cent  now  of  total  income  figures— I 
will  give  them  more  specifically  later  on— 
are  excluded  from  the  housing  market.  In  a 
period  of  two  short  years  the  Premier  has 
achieved  what  few  men  are  able  to  achieve— 
the  exclusion  of  two-thirds  of  the  people  of 
the  Province  of  Ontario  from  ever  being  able 
to  own  or  carry  a  house  in  this  province. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  Shame! 

Mr.  Lewis:  That's  quite  something.  Let  me 
give  you  another  figure  which  is  perhaps 
equally  interesting.  In  January,  1973,  only 
seven  per  cent  of  the  sales  in  Metropolitan 
Toronto  involved  homes  of  over  $50,000.  In 
December,  1973,  28.5  per  cent  of  the  sales 
in  Metro  involved  houses  over  $50,000,  and 
the  houses  selling  in  the  over  $50,000  cate- 
gory constitute  by  far  the  largest  percentage 
of  house  transactions  taking  place  in  the 
Province  of  Ontario.  Now,  will  the  Premier 
tell  me  how  the  people ,  of  this  province  can 
afford  homes  upwards  of  $50,000? 

Someone  in  the  NDP  research  department 
did  something  which  I  thought  was  really 
quite  fascinating.  We  went  to  TEELA. 
Members  all  know  something  about  TEELA. 
I  don't  know  what  the  letters  stand  for 
but  it  is  a  private  outfit  with  close  connec- 
tions with  the  Revenue  ministry— an  outfit 
the  minister  will  soon  be  getting  rid  of  I 
understand— which  notates  every  real  estate 
transaction,  computerizes  them  and  has  them 
available  on  small  cards.  We  went  through 
the  pattern  of  acceleration  in  house  costs 
for  a  representative  number  of  residences 
in  the  Metro  Toronto  area;  residences  that 
were  all  initially  considered  to  be  low  in- 
come and  lower-middle  income  ownership 
potential.  Let  me  tell  the  House  what  we 
found. 

In  the  borough  of  York,  in  the  280  block 
of  Caledonia  Rd.— my  colleague  from  York 
South  knows  it  well— we  both  knocked  on 
doors  up  and  down  Caledonia  Rd.  In  1965,  a 
house  sold  for  $12,600;  in  February,  1973, 
$28,800;  estimated  value  in  February,  1974, 


$38,300.  No.  525  Dune  St.,  just  northwest  of 
High  Park,  in  the  west  end  of  the  city— 
1965,  $21,800;  May,  1973,  $42,400;  February, 
1974,  $50,500.  No.  5  Clinton  St.  in  Toronto 
—you  may  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  that 
lies  between  Bathurst  and  Dufferin,  the 
old  stamping  grounds  for  some  of  us  who 
inhabit  these  legislative  benches— 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  The  hon.  member 
springs  from  there  too,  eh? 

Mr.  Lewis:  —in  1963,  just  10  years  ago, 
the  price  on  the  home— sorry,  this  was  a  num- 
ber on  Clinton  St.;  I  have  the  actual  num- 
bers, but  I  am  not  sure  how  the  home- 
owners would  feel  if  photographs  were  be- 
ing taken.  I  will  have  to  think  about  that. 
At  any  rate,  it's  a  very  low  odd  number 
on  Clinton  St.-1963,  $11,700;  March,  1973 
$28,250;  estimated  value  in  February,  1974, 
$36,700. 

On  Markham  St.,  Toronto,  one  block  west 
of  Bathurst.  Markham  St.— some  of  us  grew 
up  on  Markham  St.;  the  Duddy  Kravitzes 
of   this   world   grew   up   on   Markham   St. 

Mr.  P.  G.  Givens  (York-Forest  Hill):  Your 
memory  is  good,  Mordechai. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Mr.  Speaker,  that's  not  me. 
That's  the  member  for  York- Forest  Hill. 
What  makes  Philip  run? 

In  1964,  the  price  of  this  home  on  the 
400  block  of  Markham  St.  was  $15,900; 
May,  1973,  $43,100;  in  February,  1974,  it 
could  change  hands  for  an  estimated  $51,400. 

Mr.  Givens:  Nothing  on  Markham  St.  can 
be  worth  that. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Can  be  worth  that?  Well,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  I  wandered  down  Markham 
St.  to  Ed's  Markham  St.  "Village"  just  a 
couple  of  weekends  ago,  and  it  struck  me 
that  obviously  the  whole  character  is  chang- 
ing. Now  you  can  get  a  house  for— 

Mr.  Givens:   That's  north  Markham  St. 

Mr.  Lewis:  That's  north  Markham  St. 

No.  10  Metcalfe  St.— now  mark  this;  this 
is  in  Don  Vale,  in  that  area  which  we 
assumed  would  be  preserved  for  low-  and 
middle-income  earners.  In  1965  the  house 
sold  for  $7,500— again,  it  is  a  very  low 
number  on  Metcalfe-in  1966  for  $9,203;  in 
November,  1972,  for  $31,500;  in  March, 
1973,  for  $61,000-these  are  actual  sales- 
and  estimated  value  in  February,  1974,  was 
$79,200. 

Mr.  P.  D.  Lawlor  (Lakeshore):  What  a 
government! 


128 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Lewis:  Low-income,  middle-income 
housing! 

Mr.  M.  Gaunt  (Huron-Bruce):  I  tell  you, 
that's  even  more  than  for  chicken. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  even  the  member  for 
Huron-Bruce  would  have  to  sell  two  or  three 
turkeys  for  that  kind  of  down  payment,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

No.  32  Strathcona  Ave.  in  the  riding 
of  my  colleague  from  Riverdale;  he  can  tell 
you  it's  part  of  a  riding  that  should  be 
low-  and  middle-income  housing— in  1964 
the  house— again  a  number  very  low  on 
Strathcona,  on  the  even  side  of  the  street- 
sold  for  $11,000;  May,  1972,  $26,900;  March, 
1973,  just  a  small  jump,  relatively  speaking, 
$29,900.  It  is  now  estimated  for  sale  at 
$38,800. 

In  East  York,  so  that  no  borough  is 
exempt,  in  the  400  block  in  East  York— 
1964,    $25,500;    May,    1972,    $42,000;    May, 

1973,  $50,000-these     are     sales-February, 

1974,  estimated  value,  $60,000. 

Then  we  come  to  Scarborough,  the  pro- 
vincial riding  of  Scarborough  Centre,  the 
federal  riding  of  Scarborough  West,  and  a 
home  on  Brenda  Cres.,  in  the  area  of  the 
100  block— again  it's  a  reasonable  lower- 
middle-income  area.  In  1963  the  house  sold 
for  $14,500;  1967,  $18,000;  March,  1973, 
$36,300;  February,   1974,  $47,100. 

Willowdale,  North  York,  between  Bayview 
and  Yonge,  north  of  Sheppard,  one  of  the 
lower  middle-income  groups  in  that  part  of 
xMetro:  in  1965  the  house  was  valued  at 
$15,700;  in  1966  it  sold  for  $18,500  and  in 
1967  for  $21,900.  Then  we  move  into  the 
William  Davis  period  again-April,  1973, 
$40,000;  February,  1974,  $50,000. 

I  see  the  chagrin  on  the  face  of  the  Min- 
ister of  Energy  so  I  will  talk  about  the  Darcy 
McKeough  era.  I  don't  want  him  to  feel 
neglected. 

Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of  En- 
ergy): I  was  Minister  of  Housing  before  that. 

Mr.  Lewis:  No.  145  Niagara  St.-remem- 
ber  that  property,  because  I  want  to  bear 
reference  to  it  at  the  end-in  1966  it  sold  for 
$9,500;  January,  1973,  $21,000;  May,  1973, 
$25,600;  February,  1974,  $30,500. 

And  one  last  house,  on  Laurier  Ave.,  a 
low  number  on  Laurier,  north  of  Wellesley 
and  east  of  Parliament,  again  in  what  would 
seem  to  be  the  eventual  preserve  of  lower 
middle  class  housing— lower  middle  income 
housinfT  is  a  much  more  appropriate  way  of 
puttin;^   it-1964,    $9,700;    1967,    $15,400;   in 


the  Davis-McKeough  regime  in  May,  1973, 
$63,500  and  estimated  in  February,  1974  at 
$75,700. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  acceleration,  the  unbe- 
lievable increase  in  the  cost  of  housing  and 
the  cost  of  land,  has  occurred  right  at  the 
heart  of  this  Premier's  incumbency,  right  at 
the  heart  of  this  government,  of  the  govern- 
ment now  in  power,  over  the  last  two  years. 
That's  when  all  hell  has  broken  loose.  That's 
when  everything  is  out  of  sight. 

I  think  I  must  have  read  the  accounting  of 
a  dozen  of  them.  In  all  of  these  homes  only 
one,  Mr.  Speaker,  can  any  longer  be  con- 
sidered available  for  low-income  housing. 
And  that's  145  Niagara  St.  at  $30,500.  Be- 
fore anybody  rushes  out  to  purchase  it,  let 
me  tell  you  that  it  lies  downwind  of  To- 
ronto Refineries  and  Smelters  Ltd.  And  that's 
why  it's  still  $30,000.  But  everything  else  is 
not. 

I  think  this  random  cross-section  sampling 
means  very  simply  and  very  accurately  that 
all  of  the  housing  in  the  1960's  that  we  as- 
sumed would  be  available  for  low-income 
families  and  for  middle-income  families  is  now 
completely  out  of  range,  courtesy  this  govern- 
ment in  the  last  three  years. 

Let  me  tell  you  something  more  about  what 
I  choose  to  call  the  William  Davis  years  or 
the  era  of  this  cabinet,  this  incumbency.  In 
the  city  of  Hamilton,  the  increase  in  the  cost 
of  housing  from  1967  to  1972  was  17.4  per 
cent.  In  the  last  two  years,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  has 
jumped  by  another  22.5  per  cent.  In  the  city 
of  Ottawa  from  1969  to  1972  the  increase  was 
18.4  per  cent.  In  the  last  two  years  it  has 
jumped  another  23.5  per  cent.  In  the  city  of 
Kitchener  from  1969  to  1972  the  increase 
was  only  2.5  per  cent.  In  the  last  two  years, 
reaUy  in  18  months,  it  has  jumped  by  28  per 
cent.  In  the  city  of  Windsor  the  increase  from 
1969  to  1972  was  7.7  per  cent.  In  the  last 
two  years  it  has  jumped  by  27.2  per  cent.  In 
London  from  1969  to  1972  it  was  only  about 
20  per  cent.  In  the  last  18  months  to  two  years 
it  has  jumped  to  29  per  cent. 

The  housing  market  has  collapsed  or  sky- 
rocketed, however  one  wishes  to  view  it,  in 
the  Province  of  Ontario,  firmly  within  this 
regime,  firmly  within  the  period  where  we 
have  played  games  with  housing,  where  the 
Tories  have  appointed  one  minister  after  an- 
other who've  seen  it  more  as  a  sinecure  than 
as  a  stewardship.  This  has  happened  in  every 
single  community  that  we  scrupulously  look- 
ed at,  Mr.  Speaker. 

In  Peterborough  the  price  of  a  new  home 
has  jumped  from  $26,000  to  $32,000,  a  23 


MARCH  11,  1974 


129 


per  cent  increase.  In  Stratford  from  $22,600 
in  the  spring  of  1973  to  $28,000  in  Septem- 
ber. 

In  July,  1973,  the  price  of  a  new  three- 
bedroom  bungalow  in  Thunder  Bay  was  $32,- 
500,  $10,000  more  than  similar  accommoda- 
tion in  Winnipeg.  A  vacant  lot  with  a  50-foot 
frontage  in  Thunder  Bay  sells  for  $12,000. 
Headway  Corp.  is  the  prime  developer.  In- 
cidentally, Headway  Corp.  for  the  first  nine 
months  of  1973,  over  a  similar  period  in 
1972,  had  an  increase  in  profit  of  126  per 
cent. 

For  the  Niagara  region  housing  is  going  up 
in  identical  fashion  and  the  same  in  Guelph 
and  the  same  in  Brantford. 

In  Kitchener- Waterloo,  listen  to  what  has 
happened  to  lot  prices.  In  1963  a  50-foot 
serviced  lot  cost  $3,500.  In  1968  the  same  lot 
sold  for  $5,750.  In  1973  the  same  lot  sold 
for  $11,000. 

You  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  one  can  only  stand 
for  so  much  of  that  kind  of  thing.  Everything 
has  gone  out  of  control  in  the  last  18  months 
and  there's  not  a  single  policy  initiative, 
there's  not  a  single  tittle  of  evidence  that  the 
government  intends  to  do  anything  about  it. 
It  is  not  just  the  housing  costs,  the  land  costs; 
everything  now  is  beyond  the  range  of  low- 
and  middle-income  earners.  The  vacancy  rates 
for  apartment  dwellers  are  reaching  levels 
which  suggest  that  one  just  won't  be  able  to 
find  an  apartment  to  live  in  in  this  province  in 
18  months  from  now  when  the  government's 
tenure  is  up  for  public  accountabiMty  again. 

The  apartment  vacancy  rates  for  major  cen- 
tres in  Ontario  are,  as  we  have  been  able  to 
find  them— the  most  recent  figures  for  Decem- 
ber 1973  to  January  1974-2.2  per  cent  in 
Hamilton;  3.6  per  cent  in  Kitchener;  1.9  per 
cent  in  Ottawa;  1.4  per  cent  in  Toronto;  1.9 
per  cent  in  Windsor  and  9/lOths  of  one  per 
cent  in  Thunder  Bay,  the  lowest  apartment 
vacancy  rate  in  Canada. 

Let  me  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  any  vacancy 
rate  below  four  per  cent  means  tremendous 
pressure  on  the  upward  spiralling  of  rents  and 
cannot  really  be  tolerated.  The  costs  of  in- 
dividual apartments  are  something  that  some 
of  mv  colleagues  will  deal  with  in  later 
speeches. 

Let  me  tell  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  of  what 
some  of  these  development  companies  are 
making  while  aU  of  this  is  occurring. 
Bramalea  Consolidated:  For  the  year  ended 
November,  1973,  over  November,  1972,  Con- 
solidated's  profits  went  up  66.2  per  cent. 
Cadillac   Development:    For  the  year   ended 


Sept.  30,   1973,  over  1972,  Cadillac's  profits 
went  up  57.5  per  cent. 

Caledon  Mountain  Estates— do  you  remem- 
ber that  little  company  that  was  so  active  on 
the  Niagara  Escarpment- 
Mr.   R.  F.  Nixon   (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): Some  of  our  best  friends. 

Mr.  Lewis:  —to  whom  we  paid  such  ex- 
travagant amounts  of  money  to  purchase  a 
few  hundred  acres  of  escarpment  land? 
Caledon  Mountain  Estates  is  not  doing  badly 
by  it  all.  For  the  year  ending  Feb.  28,  1973 
over  the  previous  year,  its  profits  were  up 
89.7  per  cent.  Campeau  Corp.,  for  the  nine 
months  ending  Sept.  30,  1973  over  1972  its 
profits  were  up  44  per  cent.  Headway  Corp., 
for  the  year  ending  Aug.  31,  1973  over  1972, 
profits  were  up  39.8  per  cent.  Markborough 
Properties,  for  the  year  ended  Oct.  31,  1973 
over  1972,  had  an  increase  of  515  per  cent 
in  profits. 

So  here  you  have  the  picture.  You  have  in 
the  Province  of  Ontario,  in  the  city  of  Toronto 
alone,  housing  prices  escalating  during  this 
Premier's  stewardship  by  56  per  cent;  prices 
right  across  the  board  escalating  20,  30,  40 
per  cent  in  towns  and  cities  all  over  Ontario 
in  the  last  18  months;  the  same  true  of  the 
cost  of  land,  indeed  more  exorbitant  in  prices; 
the  apartment  vacancy  rate  declining;  the 
profits  of  the  major  land  development  com- 
panies and  those  who  do  the  building,  in- 
creasing at  an  unconscionable  level— and  I've 
not  dealt  with  the  rate  of  return  on  Invest- 
ment, but  that  is  equally  out  of  line.  So 
finally  we  have,  Mr.  Speaker,  a  new  Minister 
of  Housing— a  new  Minister  of  Housing  whose 
first  speech  says,  and  I  quote  him  into  the 
record: 

My  ministry  believes  the  situation  can  be 
greatly  improved  by  increasing  the  supply 
of  serviced  land  and  changing  the  income 
mix  for  new  housing.  The  capacity  to 
make  these  changes  is  within  our  reach  if 
we  receive  the  co-operation  of  local  govern- 
ment and  developers.  One  aspect  I'm 
quickly  perceiving  is  that  our  goals  within 
the  ministry  and  the  goals  within  the 
private  sector,  and  this  certainly  includes 
the  real  estate  profession,  are  to  a  great 
degree  the  same. 

Well  there  it  is  as  firm  from  the  Minister  of 
Housing  as  it  has  ever  been  stated,  I  will  say 
that  for  the  member  for  Carleton.  The  mem- 
ber for  Carleton  doesn't  even  dissemble  about 
his  loyalty.  The  member  for  Carleton  says  the 
unlovely  alliance,  the  special  relationship,  the 
favoured    rapprochement,    between   the    gov- 


130 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


eminent  and  the  building  industry  shall  con- 
tinue—and what's  more,  "I'll  stimulate  it."  He 
even  says:  "For  we  all  have  a  responsibility, 
both  professionally  and  morally,  to  do  all  we 
can  to  assist  in  the  housing  needs  of  the 
people,  the  families  living  in  this  province." 

Well,  you  find  me  a  developer,  Mr.  Speaker, 
who  has  a  moral  obligation  to  provide  hous- 
ing. You  show  me  this  creature.  You  bring 
Bramalea  Consolidated  or  Cadillac  Develop- 
ment or  Markborough  Properties  or  Headway 
Corporation  before  the  bar  of  the  House,  or 
before  a  committee  of  the  Legislature  and 
ask  them  about  their  moral  responsibilities  for 
provision  of  housing. 

What  kind  of  nonsense  is  this?  They  are  in 
this  game  for  profits.  Every  penny  of  profit 
they  can  extract,  whether  by  virtue  of  public 
accessibility  or  by  virtue  of  the  private  hous- 
ing market. 

And  you  know,  that's  the  nature  of  the 
free  enterprise  system,  they  are  presumably 
entitled  to  it.  But  not  unconscionable  profits. 
Not  profits  that  exceed  a  return  on  investment 
that  everyone  would  regard  as  unreasonable. 
Not  profits  that  make  it  impossible  for  us  to 
sell  homes  to  low-income  and  middle-income 
families  across  the  Province  of  Ontario.  The 
reahty  is  that  the  Minister  of  Housing  made 
his  peace  vdth  the  private  development  in- 
dustry the  moment  he  assumed  his  portfolio. 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  He  sold 
out. 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  leaped  into  their  arms  as 
soon  as  he  had  taken  the  official  oath.  I  may 
say,  the  Minister  of  Housing  leaping  into  the 
arms  of  Bramalea  Consohdated  is  a  picture 
to  conjecture  with.  Presumably  this  afternoon 
he's  streaking  his  way  to  Markborough— and 
anyone  else  who  will  have  him. 

The  reality  is  that  not  a  one  of  the  mem- 
bers over  there  on  the  Tory  side  is  prepared 
to  do  in  the  housing  field  what  is  required 
to  be  done.  And  if  I  may  say  to  my  friend, 
the  member  for  Brant,  I  don't  think  the 
Liberal  Party  is  ready  either  to  do  the  only 
thing,  the  only  thing  that  can  conceivably 
rescue  the  present  housing  situation. 

In  this  situation,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  a 
sine  qua  non.  There  is  a  basic  policy  position 
which  must  be  accepted  before  anything  else 
can  happen.  And  that  policy  position  involves 
massive  public  acquisition  of  urban  land  for 
housing  development. 

To  chronicle,  as  I  have  chronicled  the 
injustice,  is  not  nearly  enough.  To  chronicle, 
as  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  did  the 
foreign    ownership    of    certain    properties    in 


downtown  Toronto,  is  not  nearly  enough.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  to  leave  out  the  Four 
Seasons-Sheraton  owned  by  IT&T  is  an  over- 
sight that  is  quite  beyond  belief.  That  stands 
at  the  head  of  our  list.  And  I  won't  tell  you 
which  hst. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  That  is 
where  the  NDP  held  its  convention. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Never  again,  I  will  tell  tHe 
members. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  Is  that 
why? 

Mr.  Lewis:  But  that  is  not  enough.  To  talk 
of  taxes— which  I'll  do  in  a  moment— is  not 
enough.  What  is  required  is  that  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Province  of  Ontario  goes  out 
and  buys  a  suflBcient  percentage  of  the  land 
adjacent  to  the  20  major  urban  centres  in 
Ontario  to  bring  the  housing  market  within 
the  bounds  of  availability.  It  buys  the  land, 
then  it  leases  it  on  a  long-term  basis  and  on 
that  land  you  build  homes— whether  one 
builds  them  through  the  Ontario  Housing 
Corp.,  or  whether  one  builds  them  through 
the  private  sector. 

And  don't  play  the  pathetic  games  that  are 
played  by  the  Comay  report,  which  reinforced 
all  the  prejudices  about  the  private  sector 
which  are  now  so  fashionable.  The  report 
which  said  we  should  acquire  something  like 
10  per  cent  of  the  300,000  acres  over  a  20- 
year  period. 

Acquire  something  like  50  per  cent  of  the 
300,000  acres.  Get  80  per  cent  or  90  per  cent 
of  it  back  from  the  federal  government.  Make 
that  kind  of  social  investment  for  the  people 
of  Ontario.  Then,  finally,  provide  homes  for 
low-income  and  middle-income  earners. 
Otherwise  there  is  not  a  solution;  otherwise 
everything  el^  is  so  much  claptrap,  because 
nothing  will  change. 

That  alone,  taking  that  land,  presumably 
from  major  developers  and  speculators,  won't 
do  it  either.  Incidentally,  Mr.  Speaker,  we 
would  take  it  for  the  original  purchase  price, 
plus  holding  costs  and  not  a  penny  more. 
Even  if  the  government  takes  that  land  from 
the  original  speculators  or  developers,  that 
isn't  enough.  The  land  which  is  held  by  the 
remainder,  the  other  150,000  acres  of  which 
Comay  talked,  has  to  be  under  so  much  tax 
pressure  that  there  will  be  an  immediate  in- 
centive to  provide  it  for  the  public  sector 
or  for  the  provision  of  housing. 

That  doesn't  mean  some  vague,  graduated 
income  tax.  That  means  capital  gains  at  75 
per  cent  of  value  minimum  so  that  there  is  a 
tremendous    inducement    to    part    with    that 


MARCH  11,  1974 


131 


land.  When  the  pubhc  sector  owns  half  of  it 
and  puts  a  75  per  cent  capital  gains  on  the 
other  half,  finally  we  will  begin  to  get  hous- 
ing built  in  the  Province  of  Ontario  at  a  cost 
which  famihes  can'  afford. 

Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  no  use  playing  games 
with  it  any  longer.  I  want  to  make  another 
point.  In  the  last  18  months  of  the  Premier- 
ship of  this  province,  of  the  tenure  of  this 
government,  of  this  cabinet,  housing  has  be- 
come an  investment  in  this  province;  an  in- 
vestment in  the  most  pernicious  description 
of  the  word.  Housing  has  become  an  altern- 
ative to  the  stock  market  for  a  great  many 
people,  and  the  unconscionable  profits  on 
housing  as  an  investment  should  be  removed. 

They  should  be  removed  in  much  the  same 
way  as  we  set  up  an  Ontario  Securities  Com- 
mission to  avoid  insider  trading  on  the  stock 
market.  We  set  up  some  kind  of  housing  and 
land  transactions  commission  to  avoid  the 
kind  of  insider  trading  and  the  kind  of  fast 
profit  which  is  made  on  the  buying  and:  sell- 
ing of  homes— they  call  it  white  painting  of 
homes,  I  think— in  some  of  the  downtovm 
areas  of  urban  centres.  They  buy  at  $20,000 
and  refurbish  and  sell  it  for  $40,000  or 
$50,000  within  the  next  month  or  two. 

iMr.  Speaker,  in  the  process  of  looking  at 
individual  houses  and  the  amazing  shift  in 
values  with  each  transaction  over  the  last  few 
year,  we,  within  the  caucus  research  dtepart- 
ment,  came  across  a  number  of  cases  in 
certain  communities  which  were  so  incredible 
that  I'm  afraid  to  use  them.  We  are  going 
back  to  check  on  them  to  see  whether  it  is 
possible.  There  are  cases  of  profits  of  100, 
150  and  200  per  cent  turned'  over  on  houses 
bought  and  sold  within  the  same  month. 
There  are  things  happening  in  Ontario,  with 
the  use  of  housing  as  an  investment,  that 
simply  can't  be  permitted. 

One  can't  play  that  way  with  what  is  a 
social  need  and  a  social  right.  Maybe  one 
can  do  it  where  people  are  volimtarily  taking 
a  risk,  but  one  doesn't  do  it  when  dealing 
with  a  social  right,  a  social  obligation,  that 
the  government  is  obliged  to  provide. 

We  will  present  those  figureis  to  the  House, 
Mr.  Speaker,  but  I  must  say  that  I  was  so 
thrown  when  they  were  given  to  me,  particu- 
larly in  one  or  two  communities  in  Ontario, 
that  we  have  asked  them  to  be  checked  yet 
again,  although  I  suspect  they  are  entirely 
accurate. 

We  are  also  going  to  have  to  look  at  the 
reduction  of  growth  in  southern  urban  cen- 
tres because  of  what  is  happening  to  com- 
munities from  Barrie  to  Peterborough— Barrie, 
Orillia,   Peterborough.   There   is   more   infor- 


mation on  them  but  one  needn't  put  every- 
thing on  the  record  simultaneously.  What's 
happening  is  that  the  people  who  live  in 
those  communities  —  and  some  members  live 
in  them;  they  know  the  little  communities 
that  lie  just  east  of  Metropolitan  Toronto; 
they  know  what  is  happening  in  their  own 
bailiwicks— the  people  who  live  in  those  little 
communities  are  being  forced  out  of  their 
own  homes  because  of  the  pressure  of  Metro- 
politan Toronto.  That,  too,  is  not  tolerable. 

As  a  matter  of  fact— I  guess  this  is  in  the 
riding  of  my  colleague  from  York  South— the 
Cobourg  Star,  on  Feb.  27,  carried  an  article 
on  the  front  page  and  a  most  extraordinary 
map  or  chart  inside.  The  headline  in  the 
paper  reads:  "Most  of  Lakeshore  Land 
Owned  by  Non-Residents".  These  are  not 
non-residents  in  a  multinational  sense.  These 
are  non-residents  of  Cobourg,  Port  Hope  and 
the  area,  but  residents  of  Toronto,  residents 
of  Oshawa  and  residents  of  other  major 
southwestern  Ontario  centres,  systematically 
going  into  the  hinterland  and  buying  up  all 
the  most  desirable  land  for  speculative  pur- 
poses, for  the  worst  kinds  of  greed  and 
acquisitiveness,  to  turn  a  fast  profit  at  the 
expense  of  the  people  who  have  inhabited 
those  parts  of  the  province  for  generations. 

The  pressure  that  Toronto  is  exerting  right 
now  all  the  way  out  to  Stratford  in  the  west 
and  all  the  way  out  to  Peterborough  in  the 
east  is  something  that  has  to  be  brought 
under  control,  even  if  it  means  pretty  fierce 
controls  on  matters  of  location  of  industry 
and  economic  growth. 

The  more  I  see  what  is  happening  to 
housing  the  more  I  am  persuaded  that  Uiose 
of  us  who  feel  that  the  airport  is  madness 
have  been  right  all  along  and  that  North 
Pickering  is  the  atrocity  we've  all  thought  it 
to  be,  because  what  we  are  doing  is  simply 
enhancing  the  land  values  and  the  speculative 
gains  in  a  way  which  cannot  be  defended. 

Finally,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  basic  housing 
policy  there  must  clearly  be  mortgages  pro- 
vided provincially  through  the  Province  of 
Ontario  Savings  Offices,  with  an  effective  rate 
of  six  per  cent  which  would  be  arranged 
through  the  tax  credit,  the  easiest  and  most 
equitable  way  of  arranging  for  that  kind  of 
interest  rate  for  houses. 

If  we  did  all  those  things,  Mr.  Speaker; 
if  we  reduced  the  pressures  of  growth  in 
Metro;  if  we  brought  in  mortgages  from  the 
Ontario  Savings  Offices;  if  we  reduced  inter- 
est rates  to  six  per  cent  by  using  tax  credits; 
if  we  put  a  capital  gains  tax  at  75  per  cent 
on  all  speculative  land  acquisition;  if  we 
set  up  some  kind  of  commission  in  Ontario 


132 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


which  would  look  into  housing  as  an  invest- 
ment to  avoid  the  insider  trading  and  the 
unconscionable  profits;  if  we  purchased  in 
the  public  domain  50  per  cent  of  the  land 
of  which  the  Comay  report  talked  adjacent 
to  the  20  urban  centres— then  we  would  have 
a  housing  policy  worthy  of  the  name  in  this 
province. 

Short  of  that,  everything  is  unacceptable! 
Short  of  that,  the  Minister  of  Housing  has 
dressed  himself  in  ashes  and  sackcloth  and 
prostrated  himself  before  the  development 
industry.  Short  of  that,  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
pattern  of  the  William  Davis  era  will  simply 
accelerate,  and  an  ever  greater  percentage 
of  people  in  this  province  will  be  denied  the 
right  to  shelter  by  the  way  in  which  this 
government  refuses  to  come  to  terms  with  a 
system  which  is  so  discriminatory  and  pre- 
judicial to  the  mass  of  the  people  in  this 
province. 

Mr.  Speaker,  what  is  true  of  housing  is 
true  equally  of  food,  and  that's  what  makes 
the  Throne  Speech  again  such  an  inadequate 
document. 

If  you  think  that  I  am  going  into  detail 
on  the  cost  of  living,  Mr.  Speaker,  you  ain't 
heard  nothing  yet,  because  the  NDP  is  stak- 
ing much  of  its  ground,  as  we  always  have, 
on  the  question  of  a  fairer  deal  for  the  people 
of  this  province  in  dealing  with  inflation. 
We  have  a  pretty  strong  declaration  of  faith 
where  that  is  concerned,  because  we  happen 
to  beheve  that  it  can  be  brought  under  con- 
trol and  are  going  to  take  measures  to  do  so. 

Let  me  tell  you  about  the  William  Davis 
years  in  the  food  industry,  Mr.  Speaker.  In 
the  same  three-year  period  since  the  present 
incumbent  took  his  seat— and  the  Premier  is 
simply  symbolic  of  the  Conservative  govern- 
ment, I  don't  know  how  else  to  characterize 
him— let  me  take  the  choice  commodities  for 
you;  well,  not  choice  but  representative  com- 
modities in  the  food  section.  Let  me  tell  you 
what  has  happened  to  prices  from  the  middle 
of  1971— to  be  exact  August,  1971;  several 
months  after  William  Davis  became  Premier 
—right  through  to  March  of  1974.  I'll  give  it 
to  you  for  the  Metropolitan  Toronto  area  and 
point  out  to  you,  sir,  that  the  discrepancies 
with  other  regions  of  the  province,  particu- 
larly east  and  north,  are  very  great,  but 
regional  disparities  are  something  some  of 
mv  colleagues  will  deal  with  more  specifi- 
cally. 

For  Metropolitan  Toronto  in  August,  1971, 
a  quart  of  milk  cost  32  cents;  in  March,  1974, 
it  cost  36  cents  for  an  increase  of  12.5 
per  cent.  A  pound  of  butter  was  57  cents  in 
1971    and    79    cents    in    1974,    3.6   per   cent 


increase.  A  dozen  grade  A  large  eggs  cost  41 
cents  in  1971  and  90  cents  in  1974,  an  in- 
crease of  119.5  per  cent,  a  pound  of  bacon 
70  cents  in  1971,  $1.15  in  1974,  an  increase 
of  63.4  per  cent. 

A  pound  of  sirloin  steak  cost  $1.36  in  1971, 
$1.78  in  1974-30.9  per  cent.  A  24  oz.  loaf  of 
bread;  32  cents  in  1971,  41  cents  in  March 
of  1974— a  28  per  cent  increase.  A  can  of 
vegetable  soup,  14  oz.  can;  18  cents  in  1971, 
23  cents  in  1974— a  27.8  per  cent  increase.  A 
can  of  corn,  14  oz;  22  cents  in  1971,  28  cents 
in  1974—27.4  per  cent  increase.  Five  pounds 
of  potatoes;  35  cents  in  1971,  85  cents  in 
1974— an  increase  of  142.9  per  cent. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  that  milk,  butter, 
eggs,  bacon,  steak,  bread,  vegetable  soup,  as 
a  representative  item  of  canned  goods,  com, 
as  a  representative  item  of  carmed  goods, 
potatoes  as  a  staple  which  is  pretty  widely 
in  use,  represent  a  not  bad  example  of  the 
kinds  of  things  on  which  families  are  depen- 
dent. I  want  to  point  out  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  that  means  on  the  average  those  com- 
modities have  increased,  in  the  William 
Davis  era,  some  55  per  cent  in  cost  in  2% 
years— 55  per  cent. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  there  is  something  quite 
interesting  in  that,  an  increase  of  56  per  cent 
in  housing  and  55  per  cent  in  food.  And  you 
know,  just  while  the  figures  are  in  my  mind, 
housing  and  food  constitute  on  the  average 
56  per  cent  of  the  total  family  budgetary 
expenditure.  So  you  can  see  what  has  been 
achieved  by  this  government  in  the  last  2% 
to  three  years.  It  is  in  its  own  way  the 
strongest  possible  indictment  of  this  govern- 
ment that  can  be  found.  In  the  world  of  in- 
flation they  are  the  delinquents. 

Just  so  I  wouldn't  seem  to  be  unduly 
unfair,  because  I  am  using  selected  figures, 
the  Premier  and  his  cabinet  use  a  diflperent 
measure  of  tabulation.  They  use  what  is 
called  the  Ontario  Food  Council  market  bas- 
ket, and  the  market  basket  contains  a  great 
many  more  items  than  those  I  have  desig- 
nated and  many  of  them  have  not  increased 
at  the  same  rate.  But  let  me  just  simply  tell 
you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  market  basket  was 
valued  in  February  of  1971  at  $56.33,  and 
in  February  of  1974  it  was  up  to  $77.81, 
which  is  an  increase  of  over  38  per  cent  in 
the  government's  own  carefully-monitored 
Ontario  Food  Council  market  basket.  And 
again  that  is  an  increase  of  roughly  13  per 
cent  a  year,  which  outstrips  the  cost  of  living 
in  other  areas  and  which  obviously  most 
families  simply  can't  handle. 

I  want  to  say  a  word  about  sugar  prices 
too,  because  I  think  it  is  time  we  talked  in 


MARCH  11,  1974 


133 


no-nonsense  terms  to  the  government  about 
some  of  these  things.  Prior  to  the  smnmer  of 
1973,  sugar  in  Ontario  was  costing  eight  to 
10  cents  a  pound.  In  September  to  October, 
1973,  it  went  up  to  15.4  cents  a  pound.  On 
Jan.  1,  1974,  it  was  up  to  21.6  cents  a 
pound.  At  Feb.  19,  1974,  it  was  up  to  30.8 
cents  a  pound. 

I  would  like  the  government  of  Ontario  to 
inquire  into  the  behaviour  of  the  sugar  in- 
dustry in  this  kind  of  acceleration  of  prices. 
We  are  the  last  people  in  the  world  to  deny 
the  workers  in  the  industry  a  legitimate  wage, 
and  if  I  thought  that  the  increase  in  prices 
had  anything  to  do  with  an  increase  in'  wages 
then  we  would  applaud  it,  but  in  fact  the 
increase  in  prices  looks  suspiciously  like 
control  by  a  cartel.  It  harks  back  to  the  point 
being  made  by  my  colleague  from  Wentworth 
the  other  day  in  question  period  about  the 
possible  cartel  activities  of  the  supermarket 
chains,  and  it's  time  that  the  Province  of 
Ontario  launched  the  kind  of  inquiry  that 
would  bring  the  facts  to  public  view. 

We  would  also  like  the  same  kind  of  in- 
vestigation of  the  bread  indtistry  and  what  is 
happening  within  the  bakeries;  and  we  would 
also  like  to  provide  to  the  farmers,  through 
the  Ontario  Milk  Marketing  Board,  the  in- 
crease per  quart  which  they  are  going  to  re- 
quire this  summer— presumably  about  three 
cents  on  a  quart  of  milk— but  we  would  like 
very  much  to  have  the  profits  of  the  major 
dairies  examined  by  a  committee  of  this 
Legislature.  But  more  of  that  in  a  moment. 

Having  set  out  some  of  those  items,  Mr. 
Speaker,  let  me  tell  you  a  little  bit  about 
what  has  happened  to  real  wages  and  real 
purchasing  power.  Something  has  happened 
in  the  most  recent  part  of  the  tenure  of  the 
Premier  and  his  colleagues  that  we  couldn't 
find  another  parallel  for  since  the  Second 
World  War.  Now,  probably  there  is  a  parallel 
since  the  Second  World  War  and  I  presume 
you  will  be  able  to  trot  it  out,  but  we  couldn't 
find  it. 

What  has  happened  is  that  when  you  cor- 
rect the  average  wages  and  salaries  for  the 
effects  of  inflation,  the  average  wages  and  sal- 
aries in  the  last  six  months  of  1973  have  ac- 
tually been  declining.  Now  that  is  absolutely 
unprecedented.  Absohitely  without  precedent, 
certainly  I  guess  in  the  last  several  years— I 
had  better  be  more  cautious;  I  get  carried 
away  when  I  hear  ministers  of  the  Crovm 
comparing  things  with  the  Commonwealth 
and  the  world,  so  I  am  given  to  hyperbole 
myself— within  the  last  several  years,  it  is 
clearly  without  precedent,  and  I  am  not  sure 
you  can  find  one,  that  the  actual  wages  and 


salaries,  corrected  for  inflation,  are  in  a  state 
of  serious  decline. 

Let  me  tell  you  the  figures,  because  they 
are  really  interesting  when  you  compare  them 
to  the  costs  of  food  and  the  costs  of  housing. 
In  January  of  1973  the  average  wage  and 
salary  was  $161.42;  if  that  figure  can  stick  in 
the  head  of  Treasury  Board's  mind,  $161.42. 
Now,  in  July  of  1973,  when  you  correct  the 
average  weekly  wage  for  inflation,  the  value 
is  $157.11.  In  August,  $156.35;  in  September, 
$150.10;  in  October,  $158.76;  in  November, 
$157.96;  in  December,  $152.24-a  drop  in 
actual  buying  power  per  weekly  wage  of 
something  like  $9.18  over  the  valtie  of  the 
wage  in  January  of  1973  and  its  effective 
value  according  to  the  price  indexes  in 
December  of  1973. 

That's  absolutely  fantastic!  A  drop  in  one 
year  of  the  equivalent  of  between  $400  and 
$500  of  real  purchasing  power  as  measured  at 
the  end  of  the  year  compared  to  the  be- 
girming,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that 
pattern  has  changed;  and  it's  the  first  time! 
Again,  when  we  worked  out  the  price  index, 
the  average  wages  and  salaries,  the  correction 
for  inflation  and  the  change  in  real  buying 
power,  we  had  to  chesck  it  out  several  times, 
because  in  all  of  the  analyses  of  such  figures 
it's  really  hard  to  find  any  other  example. 

We  couldn't;  and  what  that  means  is  that 
at  precisely  the  moment  when  all  hell's  break- 
ing loose  in  the  inflationary  spiral,  the  real 
value  of  wages  and  salaries  is  declining  in 
absolute  dollar  terms  and  that's  why  there  is 
such  public  furore  about  it.  Obviously  the 
public  doesn't  understand  it  in  that  way.  They 
don't  look  at  price  indexes.  But  it's  worth  the 
Legislature  understanding  it  in  that  way. 

Now  at  the  same  time  that's  happening  to 
wages,  let  me  tell  members  about  profits. 
Profits  in  1971  represented  9.6  per  cent  of 
the  gross  provincial  product.  In  the  third 
quarter  of  1973  they  represented'  12.4  per 
cent. 

Let  me  tell  members  about  interest  rates. 
They  represented  4.1  per  cent  of  the  gross 
provincial  product  in  the  third  quarter  of 
1973,  the  highest  that  has  ever  been  noted  in 
the  history  of  commercial  interest  rates.  In 
terms  of  salaries  and  wages,  as  a  percentage 
of  gross  provincial  product,  they  declined 
from  55  per  cent  to  53.5  per  cent  in  the  same 
period. 

The  Chairman  of  Management  Board  will 
know  that  those  are  statistically  significant 
computations,  because  they  again  demonstrate 
that  it  is  the  real  wages  and  salaries  which 
are  clobbered  as  the  pricesi  and  the  profits 
and  the  interest  rates  continue  upwards. 


134 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


It's  all  happening  here  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario,  without  the  slightest  initiative  from 
the  government  of  Ontario.  Well,  it  has  been 
off  me  hook  long  enough;  it's  time  we  joined 
battle.  Perhaps  it  can  be  put  in  another  con- 
text. 

Mr.  Stokes:  They  don't  even  underetand. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  They  don't 
even  have  the  decency  to  come  and  try  to 
find  out. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  task  force  on  social  security 
of  the  Canadian  Council  of  Social  Develop- 
ment- 
Mr.  Stokes:  One  cabinet  minister  has  the 
courtesy  to  sit  and  listen. 

Mr.  Deans:  One  and  a  half. 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  don't  begrudge  that.  The  Pre- 
mier and  the  Minister  of  Education,  I  suspect, 
are  out  in  York  county  and  I  don't  begrudge 
them  that.  I  would  have  thought  all  the 
others  would  be  here,  but  apparently  not. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  I  issued  the  invita- 
tions. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  Canadian  Council  on  Social 
Development,  in  computing  a  new  poverty 
line  for  this  country  and  this  province,  sug- 
gested a  median  income  of  half  the  average 
annual  income.  That  would  be  a  poverty  line. 
It  seems  to  me  to  be  a  little  unfriendly  to 
those  who  are  impoverished  but  that's  what 
they've  taken. 

If  one  does  take,  not  for  the  country  but 
for  the  Province  of  Ontario,  half  the  amount 
of  the  average  family  income  on  the  last  fig- 
ures available,  which  were  in  1971,  the  pov- 
erty line  for— I  guess  it  would  be  the  average 
family— husband,  wife  and  two  kids,  is  $5,742. 
If  one  applies  that  poverty  line  to  the  Prov- 
ince of  Ontario,  19.9  per  cent— 20  per  cent— 
of  the  people  in  this  province  are  even  now 
living  below  the  poverty  line  set  in  1971. 

There  isn't  the  slightest  suggestion  that  it's 
changed.  Between  60  per  cent  and  70  per 
cent  of  the  families  in  this  province  he  below 
the  average  median  income  in  Ontario  which 
at  that  time  was  $11,483.  I  ask  the  members 
how,  in  God's  name,  they're  supposed  to  cope 
with  the  incredible  upsurge  in  prices  during 
this  Premier's  era. 

During  that  era,  which  will  be  known  with 
a  certain  infamy  in  days  to  come,  the  friends 
of  the  government— and  I  mean  that  in  an  en- 
tirely generous  and  descriptive  way— the 
ideological  friends  of  the  government,  the  cor- 
porations which  share  the  government's  view 


of  the  way  this  system  should  work,  have  not 
been  quite  so  oppressed.  Their  values  are  not 
declining  in  real  dollar  terms  and  let  it  be  put 
on  the  record,  I  guess  for  the  first  time,  ex- 
phcitly;  I  once  did  part  of  it  many  months 
ago  at  a  press  conference. 

For  the  nine  months  ending  Sept.  30,  1973, 
Burns  Foods  profits  were  up  22  per  cent.  For 
the  six  months  ending  Oct.  30,  1973,  over 
the  same  period  in  the  previous  year,  Beck- 
er's was  up  57  per  cent.  For  the  39  weeks 
ending  Dec.  29,  1973,  Canada  Packers  was  up 
40  per  cent.  For  the  year  ending  Dec.  30, 
1973,  Canada  Safeway  was  up  41  per  cent. 
For  the  year  ending  May  30,  1973,  over  the 
same  period  the  year  before,  Canadian  Can- 
ners  was  up  69  per  cent.  Dominion  Dairies, 
for  the  nine  months  ending  Sept.  29,  1973, 
over  1972,  was  up  46  per  cent.  Dominion 
Stores,  for  the  39  weeks  ending  Dec.  15,  1973, 
over  1972,  was  up  13  per  cent. 

Let  me  tell  members  what  the  analysts  say 
about  Dominion  Stores.  They  see  a  much  bet- 
ter prospect  for  food  stocks  for  a  number  of 
reasons:  less  intense  competition,  improved 
productivity  and  inflation.  Rising  costs  of 
goods  can  be  passed  on  to  the  consumer,  in 
addition.  Where  the  price  of  a  case  of  goods 
rises  by  a  fraction  of  a  cent  for  each  unit,  the 
unit  price  is  often  increased  by  a  full  cent. 
These  are  the  formal  analysts  looking  at  the 
market  potential  for  one  of  the  supermarket 
chains;  reaflBrming  again,  not  the  kind  of  non- 
sense that  comes  from  the  Minister  of  Con- 
sumer and  Commercial  Relations,  who  has 
opted  out  entirely  in  his  public  responsibility 
to  do  something  about  prices  and  inflation, 
but  indicating  support  for  the  kind  of  position 
taken  by  members  of  the  NDP  caucus  and  put 
again  by  the  member  for  Wentworth  last 
week  that  something  has  to  be  done  about 
the  way  in  which  the  supermarket  com- 
panies are  manipulating  prices  and  goug- 
ing the  consumer  in  this  province.  And  this 
government  can't  sit  interminably  by  and 
leave  it  to  Beryl  Plumptre,  because  that's  a 
dance  of  absurdity— and  everyone  in  this 
House  knows  it. 

General  Foods  up  11.5  per  cent  for  the 
year  ending  March  31,  1973.  General  Bak- 
eries, for  the  six  months  ending  Oct.  6,  1973, 
is  up  232  per  cent.  M.  Loeb  Co.  Ltd.,  for  the 
40  weeks  ending  Nov.  30,  1973,  over  the 
same  period  the  year  before,  is  up  70  per  cent. 
Maple  Leaf  Mills— I'm  beginning  to  under- 
stand why  we  have  to  increase  the  cost  of  a 
loaf  of  bread— for  the  nine  months  ending 
Sept.  30,  1973,  up  147  per  cent.  Nestle  Co. 
of  Canada,  for  the  full  year,  up  93  per  cent. 
Oshawa  Group  IGA,  up  11.8  per  cent— and 


MARCH  11,  1974 


135 


on  net  profit  volume  that's  one  hell  of  an 
increase.  Schneider's  Ltd.,  for  the  40  weeks 
ending  Aug.  4,  1973,  over  the  similar  period 
the  year  before,  up  67  per  cent.  Silver- 
wood  Industries  Ltd.,  for  the  36  weeks  end- 
ing Sept.  9,  1973,  up  88.9  per  cent. 

Steinberg's  Ltd.,  up  11.7  per  cent.  And 
you  know,  the  major  factor  in  the  increase 
for  Steinberg's— which,  incidentally,  went  up 
14  per  cent  on  sales,  11  per  cent  on  income 
after  taxes;  all  of  these  figures  are  after  taxes 
—the  largest  contributor  to  the  income  was 
the  food  store  operations  primarily  in  the 
Ottawa  Valley. 

It  is  a  tremendously  lucrative  business  now 
and  the  turnover  has  them  laughing  all  the 
way  to  the  deposit  box,  while  the  Province 
of  Ontario  wrings  its  hands  and  holds  bogus 
food  conferences  in  September  of  1973. 

George  Weston  Co.,  that  made  so  much 
clamour  about  the  need  for  the  increase  in 
the  cost  of  bread,  for  the  year  ended  Dec.  31, 
1973,  profits  up  86.4  per  cent. 

Mr.  Deans:  Disgusting. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Now,  I'll  tell  you,  this  govern- 
ment is  letting  the  corporations  in  Ontario  get 
away  with  murder  going  around  gouging 
profits  and  with  their  increases  in  prices.  It's 
time  the  government  put  its  foot  down.  Stop 
playing  patsy  for  them  all;  stop  playing  patsy 
for  them  all.  This  government  can  only  allow 
the  consumer  to  be  taken  advantage  of  for  so 
long  before  it's  joined  issue  with— and  con- 
sider this  the  joining  of  issue.  We've  talked 
to  this  government  in  a  hundred  different 
ways  about  what  it  might  do,  but  now  we're 
going  to  make  specific  proposals  and  press 
the  government  every  step  of  the  way.  Some 
of  the  proposals  will  echo  what  we've  said. 
Some  of  them  will  be,  in  some  sense,  new. 

Let  me  just  remind  you  that  in  Delhi,  I 
guess  it  was,  the  Premier  said,  quote: 

The  federal  government  must  make  a 
greater  efi^ort  to  control  inflation,  the  most 
pressing  problem  facing  the  country  today. 

Mr.  Speaker,  something  has  to  be  said  very 
specifically  about  this.  We  believe,  as  a  pro- 
vincial party  in  Ontario,  that  the  responsibil- 
ity for  the  control,  of  containment,  of  prices 
and  profits  is  a  provincial  responsibility  first 
and  foremost— and,  in  constitutional  terms, 
that's  absolutely  clear.  In  constitutional  terms, 
property  and  civil  rights  gives  to  the  provin- 
cial government  the  right  to  do  something 
about  prices. 

The  federal  government  can  argue,  in  an 
emergency  period,  under  the  peace,  order  and 


good  government  clause,  constitutionally,  but 
otherwise  what  the  federal  government  does 
it  chooses  to  do  because  it  accepts  a  certain 
moral  responsibility  for  pricing  pohcy  in 
national  terms.  And  who  would  deny  them 
that?  But  if  the  federal  government  is  de- 
linquent, if  the  federal  government  abdicates 
basic  responsibility,  then  it  is  clearly  both  the 
prerogative  and  the  obligation  of  the  province 
to  enter  the  pricing  and  profit  picture.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  the  pricing  picture  in  provin- 
cial rights  terms  was  demonstrated  in  the 
Home  Oil,  I  guess  it  was,  decision  in  1940. 
It  is  very  clear  in  the  legal  context  and 
constitutional  context  that  the  Province  of 
Ontario  would  have  no  diflBculty  whatsoever 
were  it  willing  to  move  in  on  this  field. 

What  is  happening,  as  I  will  show  you,  Mr. 
Speaker,  in  a  moment,  is  that  in  the  Provinces 
of  Manitoba,  Saskatchewan  and  British 
Columbia  where  you  have  NDP  governments 
there  are  now  serious  initiatives  in  the  fields 
of  pricing  policy.  They  are  obviously  not 
prepared  to  abandon  to  the  federal  govern- 
ment the  whole  range  of  prerogative  over 
prices  and  profits.  That  is  of  some  conse- 
quence, because  very  soon  those  provinces 
are  going  to  be  able  to  demonstrate  what  we 
have  wished  for  the  world  we  could  demon- 
strate in  Ontario,  that  this  government  has 
the  muscle  and  the  capacity  to  do  it.  And 
when  it  refuses  to  do  it  here,  it  is  not  that 
it  is  collaborating  in  some  national  policy. 

There  is  no  national  policy,  except  for  the 
subsidy  on  bread  and  milk  and  wheat.  Except 
for  some  occasional  and  capricious  pro- 
grammes around  oil  prices  and  the  security 
of  energy  supply,  there  is  no  national  policy. 
This  government  knows  it.  And  it  further 
knows  that  constitutionally  it  has  the  right  to 
move  in.  If  the  people  of  Ontario  are  looking 
for  someone  to  blame  for  the  cost  of  living 
and  for  inflation,  thai  they  can  look  right 
here,  because  it  is  easfly  discernible  when 
you  look  at  the  policies,  or  the  absence  of 
policies,  of  this  government. 

Back  in  Charlottetown  in  August,  1973, 
the  Premier  said  he'd  call  in  the  supermarket 
heads  for  a  discussion  of  pricing  policy.  I 
remind  the  House  that  nothing  has  hap- 
pened. He  said  at  that  time,  and  I  quote 
him:  "Some  of  the  food  chains  were  quite 
irresponsible."  If  a  Premier  of  a  province 
thinks  that  food  chains  are  irresponsible, 
where  the  devil  is  he?  What  happened 
between  Aug.    10,   1973,  and  March,   1974? 

At  the  Ontario  food  conference  on  Sept. 
18,  1973,  do  you  remember  the  promises  of 
the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations?   Let   me   list  them   for   you,    Mr. 


136 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Speaker.  He  promised,  number  1,  a  business 
practices  Act  to  prohibit  unfair  and  de- 
ceptive practices.  Not  a  word  heard  of  it! 
It  isn't  in  the  House  yet.  After  seven 
months,  where  is  it?  Number  2,  he  promised, 
that  the  courts  be  given  power  to  rule  on 
what  was  an  unconscionable  profit.  Where 
is  it?  Where  is  the  legislation  that  would 
give  the   courts  that  right? 

Number  3,  he  would  explore  cease  and 
desist  orders  in  case  of  unconscionable  price 
increases.  Where  is  the  legislation?  Where 
is  even  the  public  discussion.  Number  4,  he 
would  arm  the  government  with  authority 
to  act  against  food  hoarding,  speculating, 
profiteering  and  fraud.  Where  is  that  material? 
Number  5,  he  would  monitor  regional  price 
disparities.  I  have  yet  to  see  a  single  regional 
iprice  disparity  document  tabled  in  this 
House. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  it  was  the  Minister 
of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  who 
said,  if  the  public  has  the  facts  and  acts  on 
them,  the  powerful  forces  of  the  marketplace 
can  be  brought  to  bear  on  any  inequities  or 
anomalies  that  arise.  There  is  the  old  free 
enterprise  fetish.  Like  the  member  for 
Carleton  in  the  housing  market,  so  is  the 
member  for  Niagara  Falls  in  the  food  sector. 
We  will  leave  it  to  the  market  to  do  the 
job.  Well,  they  are  certainly  doing  a  job— 
55  per  cent  in  30  months  of  the  Davis  era.  No 
group  of  corporations  have  profited  so 
lavishly  from  the  abdication  of  government 
as  those  in  the  food  and  development  in- 
dustry here  in  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

Let  me  suggest  to  you  a  series  of  policies, 
Mr.  Speaker.  Number  1,  get  the  facts.  And 
the  facts  require  a  rigorous  monitoring  and 
exposure  of  all  of  the  prices  in  selected 
communities  across  the  Province  of  Ontario. 
In  the  Province  of  Manitoba  they  have  a 
price  monitoring  system  for  northern 
Manitoba.  They  select  a  whole  range  of 
communities  for  assessment.  They  take  into 
consideration  such  factors  as  modes  of  trans- 
portation, the  number  of  retail  outlets, 
sources  of  supplies  and  co-operation  of  local 
community  councils.  They  compare  them  to 
the  prices  prevailing  in  Winnipeg  at  the 
time.  Those  are  now  published  documents. 
Gradually  it's  becoming  apparent  to  the 
people  of  Manitoba  where  the  disparities 
exist,  and  the  pressures  are  so  great  because 
the  embarrassment  is  so  acute  as  some  of 
these  northern  communities  reveal  what  they 
are  paying  for  basic  goods,  that  they  are 
correcting  themselves  internally  even  in  ad- 
vance of  the  likely  legislation. 


But  more  important  than  that,  Mr.  Speaker, 
in  the  getting  of  the  facts  we  need  a  month- 
ly report  of  price  spreads  from  the  farm  gate 
to  the  checkout  counter,  and  let  that  be 
a  matter  of  straight  public  policy  and  public 
accessibility.  Can  you  imagine  if  the  con- 
sumer of  Ontario  saw  what  was  received  at 
the  farm  gate  in  any  one  of  the  whole  range 
of  commodities  and  what  was  paid  at  the 
checkout  counter?  There  would  be  a  public 
outcry  that  this  government  could  not  resist 
and  the  middle  man  and  the  supermarkets, 
who  have  taken  off  the  extravagant  profits, 
wouldn't  last  very  long,  I'll  tell  you. 

Two,  we  need  a  prices  review  tribunal 
in  this  province— a  prices  and  profits  review 
tribunal  really— so  tough  and  so  unrelenting 
that  it  could  roll  back  any  price  that  was  il- 
legitimate, would  have  the  power  to  com- 
mand witnesses  and  balance  sheets,  and  have 
the  power  to  make  public  the  various  com- 
ponents that  go  into  the  prices  charged  by 
various  sectors  of  the  economy.  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  say,  as  we  have  said  before,  roll  back  one 
price  in  Ontario;  just  one  price,  once.  Just 
do  it  once.  Try  it,  you'll  like  it;  it  won't  hurt 
you.  Roll  back  one  price  and  the  effect  will 
be  so  instantaneous  and  dramatic  right  across 
the  province  in  all  the  other  sectors  the 
people  of  Ontario  will  suddenly  believe  that 
maybe  inflation  can  be  controlled,  that  may- 
be it  is  possible  to  come  to  grips  with  the 
cost  of  living.  But  the  government's  refusal 
ever  to  move  in,  even  on  one  unconscionable 
price,  is  a  sort  of  commentary  on  its  social 
philosophy,  its  refusal  to  intrude  on  the 
private  sector. 

Three,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  need  an  excess 
profits  tax  badly  in  this  province,  in  the 
whole  food  industry  and  in  related  industries. 
We  need  an  excess  profits  tax  that  arrives 
by  learned  consensus— representatives  of  the 
industry,  representatives  of  goverrmient— oh 
what  is  a  fair  rate  of  return  on  investment 
after  taxes  and  then  beyond  that  rate  of  re- 
turn the  profits  are  taxed  at  very  high  levels. 
Then  we  would  begin  to  have  another  dis- 
incentive for  accumulating  such  profits. 

Four,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  need  immediate  cor- 
rective action  for  a  guaranteed  annual  in- 
come, especially  for  senior  citizens,  and  it 
has  to  work  at  the  level  of  $225  a  month 
minimum,  plus  all  of  the  ancillary  benefits, 
the  cost  of  living  factor,  the  tax  credits  and 
so  on. 

Finally,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  need  to  solve  our 
supply  problems  and  that's  going  to  mean  an 
agricultural  policy  which  talks  about  support 
for  the  family  farm,  something  that  was  no- 
where mentioned  in  the  budget,  as  well  as  a 


MARCH  11,  1974 


137 


I 


retreat  from  the  present  governmental  obses- 
sion with  turning  as  many  farms  into  con- 
crete as  they  possibly  can. 

I  met  Gordon  Hill,  the  president  of  the 
Ontario  Federation  of  Agricultural,  at  a  pro- 
vincial council  meeting  this  last  weekend 
when  he  was  speaking  on  the  Amprior  dam 
to  the  NDP  members  of  council  to  an  emer- 
gency resolution  which  we'd  passed.  I  talked 
with  him  quietly  about  the  government's 
decision  on  the  Sarnia-to-Montreal  pipeline. 
I  was  assured  by  Mr.  Hill,  and  I  don't  think 
I  misquote  him,  that  despite  what  the  govern- 
ment said  about  the  OFA  being  interested 
primarily  in  compensation,  what  the  Onario 
Federation  of  Agriculture  is  arguing  for— 
and  with  enormous  justice,  in  many  ways- 
is  that  the  whole  route  should  be  through  the 
north  and  should  be  within  Canada— that 
the  entire  route  should  be  within  the  Cana- 
dian north— and  that  the  disruption  to  farm- 
land will  in  fact  be  very  severe  and  that 
they  are  not  to  be  fobbed  off  with  simple 
references  to  compensation.  That's  an  un- 
deserving slap  at  the  Ontario  Federation  of 
Agriculture  and  a  very  gratuitous  crack  that 
was  contained  in  the  announcement  made 
by  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Resources 
Development. 

Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  one  other  way  of 
measuring  the  William  Davis  years  in  terms 
of  inflation  which  is  immediately  apparent. 
There  are  many,  many  other  items  we  can 
look  at,  but  just  let  me  look  for  a  moment 
at  the  rate  of  inflation,  which  is  extremely 
difficult  to  calculate  in  one  sense  but  I 
think  useful  in  another. 

In  February  of  1971,  right  at  the  point  of 
the  ascendancy,  the  percentage  increase  in 
the  consumer  price  index  from  the  same 
period  a  year  earlier  was  1.7  per  cent.  In 
December  of  1973,  the  increase  was  9.2  per 
cent.  Now,  what  I'm  saying,  Mr.  Speaker, 
is  that  the  rate  of  inflation  over  the  life  of 
this  government  has  accelerated  in  a  three- 
year  period  by  550  per  cent.  That's  the  rate 
of  accelerating  inflation.  At  least,  if  you 
have  to  have  an  inflationary  rate,  keep  it 
down  to  something  that's  manageable.  But 
that  it  should  be  five  and  a  half  times  what 
it  was  at  the  beginning  of  the  Premier's 
tenure  to  this  point,  is  something  that  is 
really  beyond  the  pale. 

And  whether  it  is  in  this  Throne  debate 
or  on  other  occasions,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  will 
be  dealing  with  fuel  oil,  with  gasoline,  with 
the  cost  of  cars,  with  automobile  insurance 
premiums,  with  drugs,  with  every  aspect 
of  the  economy  and  documenting  and  setting 
out  the  kind  of  cost-of-living  increases  that 


we  feel  are  so  unconscionable  for  the 
people  of  Ontario  and  must  somehow  be 
turned  around. 

I  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  when  one  is 
in  opposition  one  is  constantly  fighting  for 
a  kind  of  credibility,  for  a  capacity  to  in- 
fluence the  government. 

Mr.  Givens:  The  member's  audience  is 
gone. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  I  don't  care  about  that. 
If  I  worried  about  audiences  I  would  have 
left  politics  10  years  ago.  New  Democrats 
have  spoken  to  mass  audiences  of  three  for  a 
long  time  and  it's  never  been  a  problem 
to  us. 

But  gradually  the  word  gets  through,  Mr. 
Speaker.  It  gets  through  through  the  initia- 
tives of  three  western  provinces.  It  gets 
through  through  the  initiative  of  having  the 
balance  of  power  in  Ottawa.  What  we  are 
doing  is  we  are  serving  notice  on  this  govern- 
ment that  we  are  going  to  be  unrelenting  in 
our  insistence  that  it  do  something  about  all 
of  these  areas  of  inflation.  And  that  we're 
setting  the  grounds  and  we're  telling  it  in 
advance  that  the  cost  of  living  and  the  efi^ects 
on  individuals  and  families  in  Ontario  is 
what  we  think  the  next  18  months  are  about. 
And  that  we  are  going  to  be  talking  a.bout  it 
in  no  uncertain  terms  and  that  if  it  was  pos- 
sible either  to  influence  or  to  change  gov- 
ernment in  this  province  it  is  in  the  field  of 
controlling  inflation  that  we  would  wish  the 
change  to  be  felt. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  deal  with  one 
other  matter  to  tie  it  together  which  I'd  like 
to  have  put  in  the  Hansard  of  this  House. 
I  guess  I've  done  it  from  time  to  time  on 
other  occasions  but  I  think  it  should  be  done 
in  this  forum.  We  New  Democrats  feel  that 
one  of  the  problems  that  the  government 
obviously  senses  and  constantly  carps  on  is  its 
inability  to  make  it  easier  for  individuals  and 
families  out  there  because  you  don't  have  any 
more  tax  resources,  and  that  although  you'd 
like  to  diminish  the  impacts  of  inflation  you 
can't  because  you  don't  have  the  tax  revenues. 
You  can't  give  any  more  money  to  old  age 
pensioners  other  than  a  $50  bonus  at 
Christmas  time.  You  can't  buy  up  sections  of 
the  Niagara  Escarpment.  You  can't  purchase 
land  for  public  housing  developments.  You 
can't  expand  medical  care  insurance  to  in- 
clude dental  care.  You  can't  do  any  of  these 
things  beause  you  are  so  strapped  financially. 

And  you  go  to  Ottawa.  And  you  meet  with 
John  Turner.  And  he  says  the  cupboard  is 
bare.    And    the    Treasurer    comes    back    to 


138 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Queen's  Park  and  waiJingly  beats  his  chest 
with  that  repetitive  refrain  that  "We  don't 
have  any  additional  sources  of  revenue  and 
the  federal  government  won't  give  it  to  us." 

Well,  another  area  that  the  NDP  feels  very 
strongly  about  and  wants  to  engage  the  gov- 
ernment on  and  which  ties  in  directly  to  the 
inflationary  batde  is  the  question  of  redistri- 
buting taxation  in  Ontario  and  moving  it  from 
indivduals  and  famlies  to  the  corporate  sector, 
specifically,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  resource  sector. 
And  let  me  put  the  material  on  the  record  of 
the  House,  and  I  know  that  in  this  policy  we 
will  find  no  support,  either  from  the  Tories 
or  from  the  Liberals,  and  that's  all  and  well 
to  the  good,  because  we'd  like  the  people  of 
the  province  to  know  where  we're  going  to 
find  the  additional  moneys  to  finance  NDP 
programmes  and  to  redistribute  wealth. 

For  the  year  1973  over  the  year  1972,  the 
increase  in  net  profits  for  base  metals  was  397 
per  cent;  the  increase  for  industrial  mines  was 
569  per  cent;  the  increase  for  paper  and  forest 
products  was  344  per  cent. 


taxes,  was  $425.4  million.  The  total  taxes  paid 
provincially  were  $22.2  million.  That's  an 
effective  tax  rate  of  5.2  per  cent. 

Mr.  Speaker,  that  means  the  mining  com- 
panies ot  Ontario  are  paying  a  provincial  tax 
rate  of  something  less  than  the  eff^ective  rate 
of  people  earning  less  than  $7,000  a  year. 
And  when  you  add  in  all  the  municipal  and 
federal  moneys,  it  still  works  out  to  something 
like  10.8  per  cent  as  an  effective  tax  rate, 
which  is  still  in  the  vicinity  of  a  rate  less 
than  for  people  earning  $10,500  a  year. 

We  submitted  those  figures  to  the  Toronto 
Star— and  before  there  are  questions  or  scep- 
ticism, or  eyebrows  raised  by  the  Provincial 
Secretary  for  Resources  Development,  whom 
I  pilloried  mercilessly  in  his  absence— 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development):  Does  the  member 
want  to  apologize  in  my  presence? 

Mr.  Lewis:  —but  have  nothing  but  affec- 
tion for  in  his  presence- 


Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  Incredible!  ^'-  ^^"*^=  Especially  for  his  eyebrows. 


Mr.  Lewis:  Let  me  tell  you  the  increases 
for  the  individual  mining  companies  in  the 
Province  of  Ontario— and  I  must  say,  when  I 
think  of  what  has  been  extraced  from  the 
resource-based  communities  of  northern  On- 
tario and  how  pathetically  little  has  been 
returned  to  them  by  way  of  basic  community 
supports,  it  amounts  to  something  verging  on 
the  criminal  in  public  finance  and  in  public 
priorities. 

Let  me  tell  you  about  these  mining  com- 
panies right  now.  International  Nickel,  for  the 
fiscal  year  1973  over  1972,  had  an  increase 
in  profit  of  106.6  per  cent;  Falconbridge 
Nickel,  for  the  same  year,  had  an  increase  of 
766  per  cent;  Campbell  Red  Lake  Mines,  for 
the  year  ended  Sept.  30  over  1972,  84.9  per 
cent;  Pamour  Porcupine  Mines  Ltd.,  for  the 
year  ended  Dec.  31,  1973,  over  the  previous 
year,  271  per  cent;  Mattagami  Lake  Mines, 
for  the  same  period,  169  per  cent;  Noranda 
Mines,  for  the  nine  months  ended  Sept.  30, 
65.7  per  cent;  Rio  Algom  Mines,  for  the  year 
ended  June  30,  1973,  175  per  cent;  Denison 
Mines,  for  the  year  ended  in  Dec,  1973,  24 
per  cent;  Kerr  Addison  Mines,  for  the  same 
period,  66  per  cent;  Dome  Mines,  for  Sept. 
30,  1973,  over  the  previous  year,  99  per  cent. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  fact  of  the  matter  is  that 
we  have  the  potential  wealth  in  this  province 
to  do  everything  we  would  wish  if  we  would 
only  tax  it.  In  the  last  year  for  which  figures 
are  available,  the  1970-1971  year,  the  net 
profit  for  the  mining  industry  in  Ontario,  after 


Mr.  Lewis:  Especially  for  his  eyebrows- 
let  me  read  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  what  the 
Toronto  Star  reported  in  Saturday's  "Insight" 
section  about  those  figures: 

The  Ontario  Mining  Association  assem- 
bled a  battery  of  nine  accountants  asso- 
ciated with  the  province's  major  mining 
companies  to  deal  with  the  NDP  figures 
at  the  request  of  the  Star. 

The  result:  They  were  sure  Lewis  was 
wrong,  but  they  couldn't  prove  it. 

"We  simply  have  never  assembled  such 
figures,"  said  one  accountant. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Just  a  natural  instinct. 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  added:  "We  are  planning  to 
do  so,  but  right  now  we  just  don't  have  them." 
They  were  sure  Lewis  was  wrong,  but  they 
couldn't  prove  it. 

Well,  first  of  all  it  is  not  Lewis;  it  is  those 
who  work  for  the  caucus  in  the  research 
group.  Let  that  acknowledgement  be  made 
because  without  them  we  would  be  in  a  sorry 
state.  But  in  fact  those  figures  are  impec- 
cably drawn  from  the  documents  and  ma- 
terials which  the  government  has  at  hand. 
That  is  why  I  asked  the  Minister  for  Na- 
tural Resources  (Mr.  Bemier)  today  to  table 
the  next  edition  of  the  annual  statistical  re- 
port of  mineral  production  of  Ontario;  it  has 
the  tax  tables  in  it.  This  is  unfortunately 
only  for  1970.  They  have  got  1971  sitting  in 
a  desk  over  there.  Three  weeks  ago  we  asked 


MARCH  11,  1974 


139 


for  the  printed  copy.  They  said  "No,  you 
can't  have  it.  The  cabinet  has  decided  not  to 
release  it  but  you  can  ask  to  photostat  cer- 
tain pages."  We  sent  over  a  specific  request 
for  a  photostat  of  the  page  dealing  with  tax 
statistics.  This  morning  they  called  back  to 
say,  "You  can't  have  it.  It  won't  be  released." 

I  am  very  pleased  the  Minister  of  Na- 
tural Resources  has  now  decided  to  release 
the  document  but  we  know  why  they  wanted 
to  sit  on  that  docimient  until  one  has  to  pur- 
loin it  or  force  it  out.  The  government  has  got 
to  be  embarrassed  by  an  effective  tax  rate  of 
5.2  per  cent  for  the  mining  industry.  It  has 
to  be  embarrassed  because  people  in  this 
province  earning  less  than  $7,000  a  year  pay 
more  by  way  of  taxes  than  International 
Nickel,  Falconbridge,  Rio  Algom,  Mattagami, 
Denison  Mines,  Dome  Mines,  Porcupine  and 
all  of  them  put  together. 

We  are  not  going  to  rest  our  case  on  those 
grounds.  For  what  it's  worth,  we  don't  think 
that  the  effective  rate  of  taxation  for  the 
resource  sector  should  be  based  on  net  profits 
and  we  don't  think  so  because  we  are  ex- 
tremely uncharitable  politicians  when  looking 
at  the  mining  sector.  They  have  so  much 
that  they  write  off  before  they  get  to  the 
profits  after  taxes  that  to  deal  with  net  profits 
is  no  to  deal  with  an  accurate  representa- 
tion of  what  they  are  realty  worth. 

They  have  cut  their  depletion  allowances, 
their  depreciation  allowances,  their  special  tax 
concessions,  their  special  early  writeoffs.  They 
have  fiddled  and  diddled  with  the  books. 
They  have  done  everything  under  the  sun  to 
present  the  gloomiest  picture  possible  and 
then  they  present  us  with  a  net  profit  of  $425 
million. 

No,  we  accept  the  formula  which  says  one 
should  base  the  resource  tax  on  a  percentage 
of  total"  production— not  productivity  but  total 
production— and  one  gets  away  with  the  com- 
plexities of  the  smelting  and  refining  opera- 
tions lumped  in  with  certain  other  aspects  of 
the  resource  industry  and  one  gets  away 
with  the  tremendous  range  in  the  fashion  in 
which  statistics  are  computed  for  profits. 

If  one  looks  at  that— I  have  the  latest  off 
the  press  in  front  of  me— let  me  tell  members 
what  Ontario  has  been  receiving  as  a  per- 
centage of  total  production  from  the  natural 
resource  sectors,  specifically  the  mining  sec- 
tor, in  the  last  several  years.  In  1970,  the  total 
production  was  $1.59  billion.  The  total'  taxes 
paid  were  $27.6  million,  total  provincial  rev- 
enues. That  includes  mines  profits  tax,  acre- 
age tax,  leases,  permits,  fees,  licences,  royal- 
ties, everything,  $27.6  million.  The  provincial 


tax  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  total  pro- 
duction was  1.7  per  cent. 

For  1971,  total  production  was  $1.55  bil- 
lion; the  total  mining  revenue  paid  provinci- 
ally  by  way  of  provincial  taxes  was  $16  mil- 
lion. The  effective  rate  was  one  per  cent  of 
total  production.  In  1972,  total  production  was 
$1.5  billion;  the  amount  of  money  paid  with 
everything  included  in  provincial  revenues 
was  $18.9  million;  the  effective  rate  of  taxa- 
tion was  1.2  per  cent.  In  1973,  the  grand 
total,  estimated,  of  mineral  production  is  1.8 
billion,  the  total  tax  revenues,  estimated,  is 
$22  million;  again,  1.2  per  cent  as  a  total 
reflection  of  production. 

'Mr.  Speaker,  these  figures  are  really  appall- 
ing. If  you  would  lump  in  the  corporation 
income  tax,  federal  tax,  property  tax,  do  you 
know  what  you  do?  You  actually  tend  to 
double  it.  They  pay  two  per  cent  instead  of 
one  per  cent  but  in  provincial  terms  they  are 
paying  around  one  per  cent  of  total  pro- 
duction on  the  average.  The  NDP  says  that 
the  natural  resource  sector  should  pay— mark 
this— 15  per  cent  of  total  production  by  way 
of  direct  provincial  taxes  and  anotheT  10  cents 
on  each  ton  of  ore  in  reserves,  the  total  of 
which  would  approximate  $300  million  in 
additional  annual  revenue  for  the  Province  of 
Ontario.  Now,  the  government  of  Ontario,  as 
presently  constituted,  will  never  do  it.  In  fact, 
in  last  year's  budget- 
Mr.  Deans:  But  we  will. 

Mr.  Lewis:  —it  said  that  it  wanted  to  alter 
the  tax  arrangements  for  the  mining  industry 
in  a  way  that  would  leave  them  approximately 
the  same. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  minister  said  he's  go- 
ing to  give  them  more  incentives  to  get  out 
and  explore.  They  have  quit  exploring. 

Mr.  Lewis:  As  a  matter  of  fact,  that's  true; 
there  would  be  additional  incentives.  We're 
saying  we're  going  to  turn  that  one  per  cent 
into  15  per  cent.  In  other  words,  we're  going 
to  do  here  what  the  provinces  of  British 
Columbia,  Manitoba  and  Saskatchewan  are 
doing. 

And  I  point  out  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  and 
through  you  to  the  Secretary  for  Resources 
Development,  that  there  are  no  mineral  in- 
dustries leaving  BC;  that  there  are  no  jobs 
leaving  BC;  that  the  exploration  hasn't  been 
constrained;  that  everything  continues  apace 
except  that  the  public  is  finally  getting  the 
share  to  which  it's  entitled. 

Now,  for  a  generation  or  more  the  Province 
of  Ontario  has  been  ripped-off  by  the  mining 


140 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


industry.  This  government  has  conspired  in  a 
denial  to  the  public  of  its  rightful  entitlement 
in  a  way  that  is  really— well,  it's  indescrib- 
able. I  don't  know  how  it  came  to  that  con- 
clusion. Again,  it's  clearly  a  sharing  of  social 
philosophy. 

When  the  chips  are  down  and  the  govern- 
ment is  pushed  to  the  wall,  it  raises  the  sales 
tax.  That's  what  it  does.  Or  it  raises  income 
tax.  Or  it  allows  property  tax  to  be  raised  so 
many  mills.  The  Tory  government  will  do 
anything— 

Mr.  Deans:  Or  collect  more  premiums. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Or  collect  more  premiums— 
exactly.  It  will  raise  every  regressive  tax  and 
every  tax  that  falls  indisputably  on  individuals 
and  families;  but  it  will  never  allow  itself  to 
go  to  the  one  source  of  revenue  which  is  there 
and  waiting  and  legitimate- 
Mr.  Deans:  And  it's  ours. 

Mr.  Lewis:  —and  would  do  something 
about  redistributing  wealth  in  Ontario.  But 
most  of  all,  I  was  going  to  add— as  my 
colleague  from  Wentworth  said  beside  me— 
most  of  all,  it's  ours.  It's  yours  and  mine  and 
it  belongs  to  the  people  of  Ontario.  And  the 
government  has  no  right,  it  has  no  blessed 
right  in  the  world  to  squander  on  the  profits 
of  these  blessed  multi-national  corporations, 
what  is  rightfully  the  peopfe  of  Ontario's. 

And  I  may  say,  the  government  does  it  in 
a  way  that  it  will  never  recover,  because 
they're  non- renewable  resources.  If  we  start 
collecting  $300  million  a  year  now,  it  will 
never  compensate  for  the  billions  of  dollars 
in  lost  tax  revenue  Which  we've  simply  never 
collected.  It  will  never  compensate  for  the 
destruction  in  the  Sudbury  basin;  for  the  col- 
lapse of  communities  like  Geraldton,  when  a 
one-resource  industry  closies  down;  for  the 
denial  to  the  north  of  everything  that  they're 
entitled  to.  It  will  never  compensate. 

But  we  can  begin  to  introduce  an  element 
of  justice  and  equity  into  the  tax  system.  We 
can  begin  to  retrieve  for  the  people  of  the 
province  that  which  is  rightfully  theirs,  and 
we  will  finally  alter  that  arrangement  which 
this  government  has  in  its  single-minded 
fashion  and  in  its  special  genius  for  seeing 
injustice  and  making  of  it  a  social  principle. 

So,  in  the  area  of  inflation,  in  the  area  of 
housing,  in  the  area  of  taxation  we  would  re- 
move the  inequities  in  Ontario.  We  know  we 
can  do  something  about  it.  We  understand 
the  problems  and  we're  advancing  solutions 
that  are  viable. 

'The  pleasure  of  it  is  that  for  the  next  18 
months   those  solutions  are  going  to  be   on 


parade  for  public  view  from  three  western 
provinces— talked  about,  discussed,  argued 
and  watched. 

We're  very  confident  about  the  impression 
that  that's  going  to  leave;  and  we're  very 
confident  about  the  way  in  which  the  mem- 
bers over  there  are  going  to  have  to  move  to 
meet  the  demands  of  this  kind  of  opposition, 
or  they'll  be  in  dreadful  trouble  with  the 
electorate.  Because  when  all  is  said  and  done, 
this  government's  friendly  little  land  trans- 
actions, or  its  squabbles  with  the  teachers,  or 
what  it  does  to  the  hospital  workers,  aren't 
what  is  at  root  in  Ontario— severe  and 
objectionable  as  they  may  be.  What  is  at 
root  in  Ontario  is  the  question  of  the  cost  of 
living  and  how  people  survive  from  day  to 
day. 

Mr.  Speaker,  one  of  the  phenomena  which 
is  most  fascinating  as  one  wanders  around  a 
little  more  as  I've  done,  and  colleagues  have 
done,  at  mini-caucuses  and  in  trips  and  tours 
and  visits  everywhere.  What  is  really  fasci- 
nating is  the  way  in  which  these  cost  of 
living,  these  inflationary  issues  have  taken 
hold.  One  hears  about  them  on  radio  hot- 
lines, one  has  them  raised  in  public  meet- 
ings, one  is  subjected  to  them  in  interviews 
everywhere  in  Ontario.  The  cost  of  living 
issues  mean  something.  And  the  difiBculty  of 
the  government,  the  problems  the  govern- 
ment has,  the  serious  chinks  in  the  armour 
are  reinforced  by  the  emergence  of  the  pubUc 
group,  of  the  community  groups  all  over  the 
province  who  raise  protest  and  social  dissent 
against  abhorrent  policies. 

I  simply  want  to  say  that  it's  the  juxtaposi- 
tion, it's  the  combination  of  all  these  things, 
Mr.  Speaker,  which  is  making  for  govern- 
ment an  impossible  situation.  It's  not  just  the 
impropriety  of  a  land  transaction.  It's  not  just 
the  impropriety  of  a  social  policy  like  re- 
gional government.  It's  not  just  the  impro- 
priety of  cost  of  living  and  its  increases.  It's 
also  the  fact  that  out  there  from  Douglas 
Point  to  Seaforth  you've  got  a  whole  com- 
munity of  farmers  aroused  because  no  one 
will  consult  them  in  advance  on  taking  their 
land  for  inadequate  payment  when  Ontario 
Hydro  acts  like  some  arbitrary,  foolhardy, 
self-centred  corporation. 

You've  got  a  group  of  people  in  the  town 
of  Durham  who  don't  understand  why  they 
can't  be  consulted  in  advance  when  a  major 
political  decision  is  made  to  take  away  their 
name— and  with  it,  they  feel,  a  good  deal  of 
their  history  and  culture  —  and  give  it  to 
another  regional  area. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Take  away  their  name? 
The  member  is  wrong,  just  plain  wrong. 


MARCH  11,  1974 


141 


Mr.  Lewis:  They  just  don't  understand 
why  it's  not  possible  to  be  consulted  in  ad- 
vance, to  be  brought  down  and  have  it  dis- 
cussed at  Queen's  Park,  They  don't  under- 
stand this  pursuit  of  determined  alienation  of 
public  groups. 

There  is  a  group  in  North  Pickering  that 
doesn't  understand  why  it  has  to  be  the  sole 
group  in  Ontario  for  whom  the  Expropriation 
Procedures  Act  is  now  effective  in  a  way  that 
;       "in  the  public  interest"  removes  from  them 
the  right  to  a  hearing.  There  is  a  group  up 
around    Maple    Mountain,    whether   they   are 
right  or  whether  they  are  wrong,  who  simply 
I      don't   understand   why   they   have   no   access 
I      to   all   the  public  information  for  which  we 
have  already  spent  $155,000  and  are  well  on 
our  way  to  spending  $300,000— why  it  is  that 
government   by   leakage   is    what   obtains   in 
the  Maple  Mountain  area.  And  let  me  say  to 
j,       the   credit   of  the   member  for  Timiskaming 
that  there  are- 
Mr.    E.   M.   Havrot   (Timiskaming):    Thank 
you. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Well,  I  know  of  few  leaks  as 
effective  as  the  member  for  Timiskaming— 
and  why  should  it  be?  Why  should  it  be  that 
he  as  a  member,  or  somebody  who  picks  up 
rumour  or  gossip  or  speculation,  should  com- 
ment on  what  is  purported  to  be  a  major 
economic  project  for  the  northeast  part  of 
the  province?  Again,  a  kind  of  determinedly 
insensitive  and  arbitrary  exclusion  of  the 
public  to  the  process  of  planning,  to  the  proc- 
ess of  development,  to  the  process  of  partici- 
pation. 

Unto  this  day  we  have  not  had  a  full  pub- 
lic statement  about  a  project  that's  been  in 
process  from  two  to  three  years,  and  which 
my  colleague  from  Ottawa  Centre  has  raised 
time  and  again,  the  Arnprior  dam.  Today,  the 
Ministry  of  Energy  announced  he  won't  table 
the  engineering  feasibility  study.  Well,  one 
need  only  ask  "why?"  What  is  there  about 
that  study  that  raises  such  doubts  that  it 
would  be  of  such  embarrassment  for  the 
government  to  table  it? 

And  the  coalition  against  garbage  operating 
in  Vaughan  township  and  Hope  township  and 
Pickering  township— all  of  these  groups- 
appearing  before  an  environmental  hearing 
board  that  was  interested  only  in  the  tech- 
nical and  scientific  data,  not  in  the  social 
considerations  of  major  public  policy  of  tbb 
kind. 

What  they  are  doing  over  there,  wantonly, 
relentlessly,  inexorably,  is  alienating  Ontario, 
group  by  group,  community  by  community, 
issue    by    issue    and    it's    all    beginning    to 


merge.  This  pathetic  little  performance  in  the 
Throne  Speech,  the  "business  as  usual"  tenor 
of  the  Throne  Speech,  is  not  what  will  bring 
it  all  together  for  the  government  because 
it's  gone  too  far.  It  has  to  have  some  imagi- 
nation in  order  to  rescue  it. 

Mr.  Lewis  moves,  seconded  by  Mr.  Deans: 
That    this    govenment    be    further    con- 
demned for  its  failure  to  institute  satisfac- 
tory actions  in  the  following  policy  areas: 

Inflation  in  the  cost  of  living: 

1.  Failure  to  investigate  increases  in 
profits  to  ensure  no  excess  profit-taking: 

2.  Failure  to  establish  a  price  and  profit 
review  tribunal  with  power  to  investigate 
every  aspect  of  price  increases  and  take 
whatever  action  is  necessary  to  ensure  no 
unreasonable  increases,  or  to  have  selected 
increases  rolled  back; 

3.  Failure  to  establish  a  consumer  pro- 
tection code  extending  not  only  to  market- 
place transactions  and  commodities  but  to 
the  provision  of  services; 

4.  Failure  to  institute  a  province-wide 
warranty  for  home  building  standards; 

5.  Failure  to  institute  a  public  auto- 
mobile insurance  programme. 

Northern  development: 

1.  Failure  to  establish  economic  growth 
in  northern  Ontario  based  on  the  resource 
potential  as  a  catalyst  for  secondary  devel- 
opment; 

2.  Failure  to  establish  northern  economic 
development  in  employment  based  on  long- 
term  secondary  growth  as  a  number-one 
priority; 

3.  Failure  to  recognize  the  massive  eco- 
nomic disparity  between  northern  and 
southern  Ontario  and  the  adverse  effects  of 
the  two-price  system  in  this  province,  and 
failure  to  take  appropriate  measures  to 
bring  about  equality. 

Land  use  and  urban  growth? '^f      •   'i"' 

1.  Failure  to  move  immediately  to  ac- 
quire for  the  public  sector  sufficient  land  to 
meet  the  projected  housing  needs  over  the 
next  20  years; 

2.  Failure  to  begin  a  house-building  pro- 
gramme aimed  at  producing  at  least 
250,000  homes,  both  private  and  public, 
within  18  months; 

3.  Failure  to  develop  a  land-use  policy 
and  overall  development  plan  to  meet 
recreation  requirements  in  all  areas  of  the 
province  with  immediate  emphasis  on  the 
"golden  horseshoe"  area; 


142 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


4.  Failure  to  establish  rent  review  and 
control  measures. 

Employer-employee  relations: 

1.  Failure  to  amend  the  Ontario  Labour 
Relations  Act  to  meet  the  legitimate  re- 
quests of  the  Ontario  Federation  of  Labour 
as  conveyed  to  all  members  of  the  Legisla- 
ture; 

2.  By  allowing  conditions  of  work  and 
wages  for  the  hospital  workers!  of  Ontario 
to  deteriorate  to  a  substandard  level; 

3.  By  creating  a  confrontation  with 
"teachers  in  this  province  and'  then  faihng 
to  respond  to  the  consequences  of  this 
action; 

i4.  By  inflicting  compulsory  arbitration  on 
Crown  employees; 

5.  Failure  to  legislate  against  strike- 
breaking and  the  use  of  firms  and  indivi- 
duals to  disrupt  orderly,  legal  strikes. 

Income  maintenance: 

1.  By  failing  to  institute  an  income 
maintenance  programme  to  meet  the  legiti- 
mate needs  of  the  elderly; 

2.  By  faihng  to  establish  adequate  in- 
come levels  for  the  disabled  and  other  dis- 
advantaged people  of  Ontario. 

Health: 

1.  Failure  to  provide  a  suflBcient  range 
of  institutional  facilities  to  ensure  adequate 
health  care  at  lowest  cost; 

2.  By  failing  to  institute  a  dental  and 
drug  care  programme; 

3.  By  failing  to  take  initiatives  which 
would  upgrade  the  value  of  preventive 
medicine. 

And  further,  that  the  government  shows 
gross  negligence  in  its  refusal  to  tax  the 
resources  industry  of  Ontario  at  a  level 
which  would  allow  individuals  and  families 
in  this  province  to  experience  major  relief 
from  the  inequitable  and  oppressive  system 
of  taxation  presently  in  eflPect. 

Mr.  Wardle  moves  the  adjournment  of  the 
debate. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

PRIVATE  MEMBERS'  HOUR 

DENTURE  THERAPISTS  ACT; 

PRACTICE  OF  DENTAL  PROSTHESIS 

ACT 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): Point  of  order,  Mr.  Speaker.  Surely 
we  are  just  doing  one  bill,  are  we  not? 


Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  I  thought  it  was  by 
agreement. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  have  not  been  informed  to 
the  contrary,  other  than  by  way  of  a  notice 
listing  the  speakers,  and  both  bills  have  been 
listed  on  the  private  members'  hour  for  this 
day.  I  might  say  that  the  custom  in  the  past 
has  been  on  occasion  to  deal  with  two  identi- 
cal or  similar  bills  at  the  same  time.  It  is  my 
understanding  that  agreement  had  been 
reached  in  this  respect,  in  which  case  we  will 
deal  with  the  two  bilk.  The  hon.  member  for 
Sudbury  might  move  his  bill  and  then  the 
hon.  member  for  Brant  (Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon) 
would  move  his  bill  and  we  would  proceed 
with  the  speeches. 

Mr.  Germa  moves  second  reading  of  Bill  2,. 
An  Act  to  amend  the  Denture  Therapists  Act. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position perhaps  would  move  his  bill  too. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  moves  second  reading  of 
Bill  5,  All'  Act  to  provide  for  the  Practice  of 
Dental  Prosthesis. 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  will  now  proceed  with 
the  debate.  The  hon.  member  for  Sudbury. 

Mr.  M.  C.  Germa  (Sudbury):  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  subject  under  discussion  today  is  an  old 
chestnut  which  has  been  kicking  around  for 
several  years.  I  know  many  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Legislature  have  taken  an  inter- 
est in  it  and  have  followed  the  convoluted 
course  that  this  problem  has  taken  since  the 
introduction  of  Bill  203,  which  was  with- 
drawn and  replaced  by  the  infamous  Bill 
246.  The  objective  of  this  present  bill,  An 
Act  to  amend  the  Denture  Therapists  Act, 
1972,  is  to  correct  what  I  feel  to  be  features 
of  Bill  246  which  are  repressive,  not  only 
to  the  general  public  but  are  also  repressive 
to  the  people  in  this  province  who  have  done 
a  service  to  the  public  in  supplying  dentures 
at  a  cost  that  the  majority  of  people  can 
afford. 

(There  are  only  four  features  in  the  amend^- 
ment,  Mr.  Speaker.  Section  1  of  the  bill 
would  make  an  amendment  that  would  re- 
move from  the  denture  therapists  licensing 
board  the  dental  hygienist  and  the  dental 
technician  who  are  part  of  the  board  as  it 
is  presently  constituted. 

The  second  section  of  the  amendment 
removes  the  requirement  that  the  denture 
therapist  work  under  the  supervision  of  a 
dental  surgeon.  It  allows  the  denture  ther- 
apist  to   deal   directly   with   the   public   but 


MARCH  11,  1974 


143 


only  where  the  patient  can  produce  a  certi- 
ficate of  oral  health  signed  by  a  dental 
surgeon  or  a  legally  qualified  medical  prac- 
titioner. 

Section  3  would  amend  the  limitation 
period  for  commencing  a  proceeding  under 
clause  b  of  subsection  1  of  section  16  of  the 
Act.  This  is  changed  from  two  years  to  one. 
In  section  4  the  amendment  provides  that 
the  Lieutenant  Governor  in  Council  may 
make  regulations  setting  fees  to  be  charged 
by  denture  therapists. 

It  is  my  belief,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  if  these 
amendments  were  adopted  as  outlined  in  this 
bill  it  would  go  a  long  way  to  solving  the 
impasse  which  has  plagued  and  embarrassed 
this  government  for  the  past  several  years. 
I  think  we  are  not  asking  the  government 
to  embark  on  any  adventure  that  hasi  not 
been  tried.  We  are  not  creating  precedent 
here.  We  already  know  that  there  are  den- 
turists  operating  in  five  of  our  provinces 
already,  in  fact,  in  Alberta  since  1961  and 
in  British  Columbia  since  1962.  Even  despite 
all  the  charges  by  the  opposition  forces  that 
these  denturists  are  not  qualified  and  they 
are  going  to  do  harm  to  the  public,  we  still 
have  not  got  on  record  any  charges  or  any 
malpractice  suits  which  the  insurance  com- 
panies have  paid. 

I  believe  that  the  record  tells  the  story 
itself.  If  these  people  have  operated  since 
1961  in  Alberta  and  1962  in  British  Colum- 
bia, then  there  is  no  legitimate  reason  that 
I  can  see  why  we  should  not  have  the  same 
services  in  the  Province  of  Ontario.  Quebec 
also  allows  denture  therapists  to  operate. 
Nova  Scotia  presently  has  legislation  on  the 
books,  and  Manitoba.  In  the  case  of  Mani- 
toba and  British  Columbia,  a  certificate  of 
oral  health  issued  by  a  dentist  or  a  physician 
is  necessary.  Ne\vfoundland  and  Saskatche- 
wan are  also  planning  to  establish  denturists 
as  a  legal,  independent  profession.  Prince 
Edward  Island  and  New  Brunswick  have  no 
legislation  concerning  denturists.  Only  On- 
tario of  all  the  10  provinces  is  the  one  that 
has  made  it  illegal.  I  think  the  reason  this 
government  reacted  was  because  of  the  ter- 
rific lobby  which  was  put  up  by  the  Ontario 
Dental  Association  in  its  efforts  to  protect 
what  I  suspect  is  a  vested  interest  in  the 
supply  of  dentures  to  the  public. 

Mr.  Speaker,  there  was  a  very  interesting 
booklet  distributed  quite  recently,  written 
by  a  dentist  by  the  name  of  Revere,  and  it's 
entitled  "Dentistry  and  its  Victims."  In  this 
book  I  think  this  dentist  has  hit  on  the 
reason  there  is  so  much  opposition!  by  the 
dental    profession    to    allowing    these    para- 


medical people  to  get  into  the  field  I  will 
quote  one  paragraph  from  this  booklet: 

The  public  has  been  conditioned  to 
accept  a  high  fee  for  denture  services  and 
a  relatively  low  fee  for  fillings  and  peri- 
dontal  work  but  the  reverse  would  make 
more  sense.  Though  the  cost  of  materials 
in  a  denture  is  but  a  few  dollars,  fees  for 
inew  dentures  have  always  been  high. 

Today's  quality  laboratory  fee  for  full 
dentures  may  range  from  $50  to  $90.  This 
lis  paid  by  the  dentist.  An  average  neigh- 
bourhood dentist's  fee  for  full  dentures, 
'upper  and  lower,  might  be  between  $300 
and  $500.  Since  the  average  practitioner 
^does  mot  spend  much  time  with  his  patient, 
la  close  commutation  could  only  prove  that 
dentures  are  a  more  lucrative  field  for  the 
typical  dentist.  It  is  ironic  that  the  end 
iproduct  of  neglect  and  poor  dentistry 
should  be  profitable. 

The  construction  of  full  dentures  has 
always  been  a  lucrative  field  and  one 
might  well  wonder  why  this  should  be.  An 
old-time  dentist  whom  I  respect  once  told 
me  that  it  was  his  belief  that  high  fees 
were  originally  established  for  denture  ser- 
vice because  the  denture  represented  the 
last  opportunity  the  dentist  had  to  make 
money  from  the  patient  and  the  most  had 
to  be  made  of  it. 

If  this  is  so,  and  it  may  well  be  so,  it 
gives  an  uncomfortable  insight  into  the 
operation  of  economic  motivation  in  the 
healing  arts.  It  is  time  and  more  than  time 
that  the  professions  took  a  fresh  look  at 
their  aims  and  ideals. 

I  think  we  have  to  reduce  the  whole  argu- 
ment, Mr.  Speaker,  to  something  very  crass. 
It  is  the  self-interest  of  the  dental  profession 
which  I  think  is  blocking  the  people  of 
Ontario  from  gaining  this  service. 

There  is  further  evidence  of  this  attitude, 
Mr.  Speaker,  in  a  booklet  published  by  the 
Ontario  Dental  Association,  September,  1972, 
entitled  "A  Public  Concern."  In  appendix  K 
the  dental  profession  posed  questions  and 
answered  its  own  questions,  and  as  I  went 
through  these  questions  I  came  to  the  con- 
clusion that  in  its  efforts  to  make  its  case  it 
had  actually  subverted  its  case  more  than  it 
had  made  it. 

Question  1  was:  "How  can  the  dentist 
justify  fees  of  $400,  $500  and  $600  for 
plates?"  This  is  the  dental  association  asking 
itself  a  question  and  here  is  how  it  answered 
its  own  question. 

Answer:  There  are  very  few  dentures  made 

for  $300,  $400  and  $500.   However,  with 


144 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


the  sophisticated  methods  available  to  den- 
tists today  it  is  possible  to  construct 
dentures  using  techniques  that  would 
justifiably  entail  fees  of  this  magnitude  and 
even  more. 

Under  the  free  enterprise  system  if  the 
dentist  feels  his  talents  are  worth  that 
much  and  a  patient  looking  for  this  level 
of  expertise  agrees  to  pay  that  fee,  that  is 
strictly  their  arrangement.  The  patient  ap- 
preciating excellence  is  glad  to  pay  for  it. 

Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  precisely  what  is  wrong 
with  the  delivery  of  health  services.  We  have 
tried  to  overcome  that  by  introducing  a 
medical  and  hospital  plan  but  the  dentists 
are  still  operating  on  the  free  enterprise 
philosophy  that  those  who  can  afford  health 
care  will  get  excellent  care.  Those  of  us  who 
are  somewhat  limited  in  our  financial  strength 
will  just  have  to  do  without.  This  is  precisely 
what  is  going  on  in  the  Province  of  Ontario 
today.  There  are  hundreds- 
Mr.  Speaker:  There  are  30  seconds  re- 
maining in  the  hon.  member's  time  allotment. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  No,  he  has 
got  20  minutes. 

Mr.  Speaker:  No.  It  was  my  understanding 
there  would  be  10  minutes  each.  Otherwise 
there  would  only  be  two  other  speakers. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
order,  we  are  entitled  to  20  minutes.  It  is 
our  time  slot  and  the  lead-off  speaker  is 
traditionally  given  20  minutes. 

Mr.  Speaker:  But  there  are  two  bills. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  On  a  point  of  order,  I 
would  aeree  with  the  hon.  member  who  just 
spoke.  This  is  the  NDFs  private  members* 
hour;  they  have  introduced  their  bill  and  they 
get  20  minutes  and  everybody  else  gets  10. 
That's  why  I  was  surprised  that  you  were 
asking  me  to  introduce  my  bill  under  the 
same  circumstances. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Of  course  the  notice  given  to 
me  includes  two  bills,  that  of  the  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Sudbury  and  that  of  the  hon. 
Leader  of  the  Opposition.  If  we  were  to  give 
20  minutes  to  each  of  those  hon.  members, 
it  would  leave  20  minutes  for  only  two  other 
speakers  and  the  usual  20  minutes  for  the 
lead-off  speaker  and  10  minutes  for  each 
other.  I  was  not  informed  of  any  other 
arrangement. 

Since  there  are  two  bills  I  fail  to  see  how 
I  can  give  each  person  20  minutes  and  deal 
with  both  bills  under  the  same  hour.  Perhaps 


the  whips  could  enlighten  me  as  to  what  the 
arrangements  might  have  been? 

Mr.  R.  D.  Kennedy  (Peel  South):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  think  there  is  precedent  when  bills 
are  combined.  Usually  the  two  who  combine 
their  bills  each  have  15  minutes,  which  takes 
up  the  30  minutes,  and  then  we  go  on  in  the 
10-minute  routine.  I  may  be  wrong  on  this 
but  there  are  lots  of  precedents  for  com- 
bined bills. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Well,  I  am  in  a  generous 
mood  and  will  do  whatever  the  hon.  members 
wish  to  do.  But  the  time  has  expired  for  the 
first  speaker,  if  it  is  to  be  10  minutes  each. 

Mr.  Germa:  I  am  not  aware  of  what  your 
ruling  is,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  can't  very  well  make  a 
ruling  without  all  the  information.  Was  there 
any  agreement  to  the  effect  that  there  would 
be  10  minutes  each? 

Mr.  Stokes:  No. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Was  there  any  agreement  to 
the  effect  that  both  bills  would  be  heard 
today? 

Mr.  Kennedy:  Yes,  between  the  three 
whips. 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  certainly  have  never 
allowed  20  minutes  when  there  were  two 
bills  during  the  same  private  members'  hour. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Well,  I  would  suggest, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  if  the  present  speaker 
were  to  continue  until  5:20  o'clock  anyone 
else  who  wanted  to  take  part  in  this  debate 
could  speak  for  10  minutes.  Would  that  be 
agreeable?  That  would  certainly  suit  me. 

Mr.  Speaker:  And  would  it  be  the  wish 
of  the  hon.  member  that  Bill  5  also  be  con- 
sidered? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  It  is  quite  all  right.  It 
is  already  before  the  House,  Mr.  Speaker. 
Let's  get  on  with  the  debate. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  everyone  agree  to  that 
arrangement?  The  hon.  member  for  Sudbury. 

Mr.  Germa:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  second  bill 
which  is  going  to  be  under  discussion.  Bill  5 
I  believe  it  is,  would  in  effect  accomplish 
the  same  thing  that  the  amendments  which 
I  have  proposed  for  the  Denture  Therapists 
Act.  I  think  all  the  arguments  I  am  making 
in  favour  of  the  four  amendments  I  am  put- 
ting are  also  included  in  Bill  5.  The  argu- 
ments are  valid  as  far  as  both  situations  are 
concerned. 


MARCH  11,  1974 


145 


We  are  talking  directly  about  money,  Mr. 
Speaker.  There  are  a  lot  of  people  in  the 
province  who  are  deprived  of  this  health 
service  because  of  the  attitude  that  the  den- 
tists have  had  in  the  past.  As  I  read  their 
answer,  they  rely  en  the  free  enterprise 
system.  If  someone  wants  to  pay  $1,000  they 
will  accommodate  him,  and  if  he  wants  to 
pay  $500  they  will  also  accommodate  him. 

I  was  talking  to  one  of  my  denturist 
friends  from  the  city  of  Sudbury  today.  He 
informed  me  that  he  knows  of  a  recent  case 
where  the  dentist  did  charge  in  excess  of 
$1,000  in  the  city  of  Sudbury  for  a  full  set 
of  dentures.  This  is  unconscionable  profit. 

I  think  eventually  our  health  delivery 
systems  have  to  be  brought  under  some  cen- 
tral control.  The  bill  will  provide  for  this  in 
that  the  Lieutenant  Governor  in  Council 
would  make  regulations  setting  fees  charged 
by  the  denture  therapists.  It  is  not  very  often 
that  any  of  our  professionals  will  agree  to 
allow  the  government  to  set  their  fees.  I 
can  just  imagine— welL  we  already  know 
what  the  medical  profession  has  said  about 
these.  They  are  in  the  habit  of  determining 
within  their  own  little  ivory  tower  what  the 
health  bill  for  the  province  is  going  to  be. 
Then  they  divide  the  pie  up  without  nego- 
tiations with  anyone. 

I  think  it  is  a  symbol  of  the  good  faith 
that  the  denturists  have  that  they  are  will- 
ing to  submit  their  fee  schedule  to  be  regu- 
lated by  order  in  council.  We  already  know 
that  the  present  fee  structure  of  the  Den- 
turist Society  is  between  $150  and  $200. 
That  is  their  maximum  range.  In  the  case 
of  senior  citizens  and  welfare  recipients  the 
price  is  $125  for  both  an  upper  and  a  lower 
denture. 

It  is  ironic  to  me  that  this  government 
has  presently  seen  fit  to  hail  into  court  seven 
people  and  charge  them  with  illegal  practice 
in  making  dentures,  while  at  the  same  time 
the  welfare  departments,  which  are  also  an 
agency  of  the  Province  of  Ontario  are  utiliz- 
ing the  services  of  these  illegal  clinics.  In 
the  case  of  the  city  of  Sudbury,  90  per  cent 
of  all  those  welfare  recipients  who  have  to 
have  dentures  are  referred  by  the  welfare 
agency  to  one  of  these  illegal  clinics.  This 
points  up  how  ridiculous  the  denture  thera- 
pist bill  which  is  presently  on  the  statutes 
is,  that  one  agency  of  government  will  hail 
them  into  court  and  the  other  agency  will 
see  fit  to  use  them.  Now,  the  denture  thera- 
pists have  also  agreed  that  in  order  to  meet 
those  complaints  from  the  dental  profession, 
and  also  in  order  to  assure  the  general  pub- 
lic that  they  are   genuinely  concerned  with 


the  health  of  their  patients,  they  have  sub- 
mitted that  they  would  go  along  with  the 
provision  that  a  certificate  of  oral  health 
should  be  provided  before  the  denture 
therapist  should  be  able  to  fit  a  complete 
denture. 

In  fact,  in  some  of  the  clinics  this  is 
already  happening.  In  speaking  to  some  of 
these  people,  I  was  told  they  do  ask  each 
and  every  patient  to  go  and  get  a  certificate 
of  oral  health  from  a  dentist  or  from  a 
medical  practitioner.  There  has  been  publi- 
city circulated  by  these  organizations,  be- 
tween themselves.  Some  doctors  are  not 
prone  to  signing  this  certificate  of  oral 
health,  nor  are  some  dentists  prone  to  doing 
it.  But  even  despite  the  efforts  of  these  pro- 
fessional organizations  to  prevent  patients 
from  getting  certificates  of  oral  health,  many 
of  these  certificates  are  now  being  filed  with 
the  denturists,  and  I  think  it  is  in  the  pub- 
lic's best  interests  that  this  is  done. 

It  is  recognized,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  these 
people  are  mechanics.  They  do  not  have  the 
extensive  educational  backgroimd  that  the 
dentists  have.  There  is  a  place  for  dentists 
in  our  society,  but  I  suspect  and  I  submit 
to  you  that  there  is  also  a  place  in  society 
for  the  dental  mechanic. 

Now,  I  will  conclude,  Mr.  Speaker,  by 
reading  an  excerpt  from  Time  magazine, 
Dec,  7,  1973.  It  is  an  essay  on  the  rights 
of  patients;  and  I  quote: 

Medicine  may  be  the  last  forum  in  which 
the  voice  of  the  consumer  makes  itself 
heard;  but  eventually  it  must  and  will  be 
heard,  since  the  ultimate  consumer  is  the 
patient  and  it  is  on  the  patient  that  the 
profession  practices. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  ample  evidence 
that  the  public  of  Ontario  has  accepted  the 
denturists.  There  are  committees  across  this 
province— spontaneously-formed  committees— 
which  are  fighting  for  the  repeal  of  Bill  246. 
These  amendments  which  I  have  proposed 
would  in  fact  make  it  unnecessary  to  repeal 
Bill  246.  It  would  only  put  Bill  246  in  an 
order  which  is  livable,  both  for  the  pubilc 
of  Ontario  and  for  the  denturists. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  One  very  important  thing 
has  happened  since  we  discussed  this  bill  in 
the  Legislature  last,  and  that  is  that  we  have 
a  new  Minister  of  Health  (Mr.  Miller).  He  is 
having  a  little  difiiculty  paying  attention  to 
this  debate  because  colleagues  on  all  sides 
are  so  delighted  in  having  him  actually  here, 
captive  for  a  moment  or  two  so  they  can  find 
out   about   their   nursing   homes,   that   he   is 


146 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


having  a  bit  of  a  problem  in  listening  to  the 
strong  argument  put  to  him. 

I  believe  that  this  is  a  more  important 
debate  than  is  sometimes  heard  in  the  private 
members'  hours,  because  I  believe  that  the 
government  should  and  no  doubt  will,  under 
the  leadership  of  the  new  minister,  change  its 
policy. 

You  may  recall,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  we  have 
found  ourselves  in  circumstances  similar  to 
this  before  when  arguments  on  all  sides,  in- 
cluding government  benches,  urged  the  in- 
clusion of  the  chiropractors  in  the  services  of 
OHIP.  The  then  Minister  of  Health,  the 
present  member  for  Ontario  (Mr.  Dymond), 
adamantly  refused  and  said  as  cogently  as 
any  minister  could  possibly  say,  that  the 
chiropractors  were  not  to  be  included.  But 
then,  in  the  course  of  time,  he  gave  up  that 
heavy  responsibility  and  assumed  a  new  one 
—what  is  he  now,  chairman  of  the  Science 
Centre  or  something?— and  the  responsibility 
for  the  governance  and  administration  of  our 
health  policy  passed  on  to  someone  else.  It 
wasn't  long— for  reasons  really  not  well  known 
on  this  side,  since  the  same  strong  arguments 
were  put  forward— until  OHIP  was  amended 
to  include  the  chiropractors. 

I  feel  something  similar  could  be  estab- 
lished at  the  present  time,  because  the  bill 
that  I  am  putting  forward  simply  has  within 
it  the  basic  principle  that  was  put  before  the 
House  on  June  26,  1972,  by  the  then  policy 
minister,  the  present  Attorney  General  (Mr. 
Welch).  It  was  No.  203,  and  it  certainly 
established  denturists  as  a  practising  group 
within  the  community,  with  the  power  to 
deal  directly  with  the  public.  This  is  pre- 
cisely what  Bill  5,  which  is  before  the  House 
now,  would  do. 

We  feel  that  amending  Bill  246  would  in 
fact  just  reverse  its  principle.  And  you  may 
remember,  Mr.  Speaker,  when  the  original 
bill,  which  restricted  the  practice  of  the  den- 
turists, was  introduced  by  the  former  Minis- 
ter of  Health  (Mr.  Potter),  he  asked  for  an 
amendment  which  in  fact  reversed  the 
principle;  and  you,  sir,  ruled  that  it  could 
not  be  continued  with  since  its  principle  had 
been  reversed  in  that  way. 

So  I  would  say  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
we  don't  want  to  make  our  arguments  in 
any  way  other  than  those  which  could  be 
acceptable  to  a  reasonable  minister,  and  I 
believe  we've  got  one.  Because  surely  he 
cannot  continue  with  the  chaos  that  has  been 
willed  to  him  by  his  predecessor  in  the  area 
of  this  particular  issue. 

We  are  not  prepared  to  see  the  Attorney 
General  enforcing  a  law  which  is   diametri- 


cally opposed  in  principle  to  the  bill  which 
he  personally  introduced  into  the  House 
when  he  was  policy  minister  in  those  days; 
for  him  to  be  required,  through  some  agency 
probably  higher  than  himself,  to  go  to  the 
denturists  in  the  province— and  there  are  107 
of  them  practising— select  six  to  begin  with, 
and  an  additional  five  or  six,  to  be  raided 
and  to  have  their  patients  mistreated.  In  one 
case,  a  set  of  dentures  was  taken  right  off  the 
table  beside  a  lady  who  was  being  treated; 
the  teeth  were  bundled  into  a  package  and 
taken  away  to  the  police  station  as  evidence 
of  malpractice. 

Surely  this  is  the  kind  of  intimidation 
which  is  unconscionable  and  unacceptable, 
and  the  Attorney  General  himself  must  just 
cringe  when  he  sees  that  he  is  using  these 
practices  for  the  enforcement  of  a  law  that 
is  diametrically  opposed  in  principle  to  one 
which  he  put  before  the  House  on  June  26, 
1972. 

I  don't  intend  to  trace  out  all  of  the 
circumstances,  but  I'm  sure  you're  aware, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  Ontario  Comicil  of 
Health  reported  on  June  25,  1972,  that  the 
denturists  should  be  allowed  to  practise  only 
under  supervision.  When  the  bill,  which  was 
opposed  to  that  particular  recommendation, 
was  introduced  the  next  day,  the  then  policy 
minister,  the  present  Attorney  General,  said 
the  government  is  always  free  to  accept  or 
reject  whatever  advice  it  wants.  In  other 
words,  it  rejected  the  advice  of  the  Ontario 
Council  of  Health  and  brought  in  legislation 
which  was  generally  parallel  to  legislation 
already  in  effect  at  that  time  in  four  prov- 
inces of  Canada. 

The  point  has  already  been  made  that 
denturists  do  practise  under  government 
supervision,  but  independently  in  the  com- 
munity, in  most  provinces  of  Canada;  and 
this  is  the  only  province  where  they  are 
directly  and  specifically  prohibited  from  so 
practising. 

Mr.  Spe^aker,  you  may  further  recall  that 
the  Barry  Lowes  committee  on  the  standards 
for  licensing  the  denturists  brought  in  a 
report  that  called  for  an  extensive  progranmie 
of  training,  following  the  licensing  of  den- 
turists —  I  think  they  called  them  denture 
technologists  or  something  like  that  —  but 
that  was  reversed  as  well  when  the  former 
Minister  of  Health  decided,  for  reasons  im- 
known  to  us  but  alluded  to  by  the  previous 
speaker,  that  in  fact  the  denturists  should  not 
be   permitted   to   practice   independently. 

The  former  Minister  of  Health  did  go  for- 
ward with  a  fairly  substantial  programme  of 
professional  training  or  technological  training 


MARCH  11,  1974 


147 


for  those  who  did  want  to  designate  them- 
selves denture  therapists.  I  understand  that 
some  85  to  90  took  the  training  in  the  original 
course  but  that  only  a  handful  are  prac- 
tising in  this  regard  because  they  find  that 
their  income  is  not  parallel  with  what  they 
might  have  expected'  to  gain  or  earn  if,  in 
fact,   they  had  continued  as  denturists. 

My  colleague,  the  member  for  Waterloo 
North  (Mr.  Good),  put  an  interesting  excerpt 
from  the  Kitchener-Waterloo  Record,  dated 
March  9,  1974,  in  my  hand  a  moment  ago. 
It's  an  advertisement  as  follows: 

Mr.  Derek  Groves,  LDT,  wishes  to  an- 
Iniounce  his  commencement  in  the  practice 
of  denture  therapy,  by  appointment,  884- 
8386,  122  Weber  St  North,  Waterloo. 

It's  an  indication,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  there  is 
a  further  complication,  that  the  licensed  den- 
ture therapists  who  have  taken  the  course 
that  has  been  put  forward  by  the  ministry— 
that  this  particular  individual  is  apparently 
going  to  practise  directly  vdth  the  com- 
munity and  without  the  supervision  of  a 
dentist.  It  may  be  otherwise,  but  certainly 
when  he  advertises  his  practice  of  denture 
therapy  by  appointment  there  is  ever)^  in- 
dication that  a  licensed  denture  therapist 
has  broken  the  ranks  and  is  prepared  to 
practise  vdthout  the  supervision  of  dentists. 

'Let  me  make  it  clear,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
we  are  not  here  being  critical  of  the  dentists. 
It  is  their  job  to  keep  all  of  us  out  of  the 
hands  of  the  denturists  or  the  denture 
therapists,  but  not  by  using  regulation  and 
statute,  but  surely  by  practising  preventive 
dentistry  which,  in  the  long  run  we  hope, 
is  going  to  render  obsolete  the  building  and 
fitting  of  dentures  for  those  of  us  who  at 
least  take  the  kind  of  advice  from  the  dentists 
that  we  should. 

I'm  simply  saying  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  the  new  minister  can,  in  fact,  exercise 
his  authority  to  make  the  recommendations 
to  his  colleagues  to  reverse  what  has  just 
been  a  comedy  of  errors  from  the  first  time 
that  his  predecessor  decided  that  the  dentur- 
ists should  not  be  able  to  practise  inde- 
pendently. It  flies  in  the  face  of  the  practice 
elsewhere  in  this  country  and  it  is  diamet- 
rically opposed  to  the  principles  put  before 
the  House  as  government  policy  on  June  26, 
1972. 

Frankly,  I'm  tired  of  being  told  by  experts 
in  the  field,  certainly  dentists  and  others, 
that  my  bill  and  the  bills  that  are  also 
before  us  today  would  put  the  public  in  the 
hands  of  those  people  who  would  harm 
them.  I  d^  not  believe  that  this  is  so.  I  do 
believe  that  we  are  moving  in  this  province 


and  elsewhere  toward  the  recognition  and 
the  substantial  development  of  paramedical 
and  paradental  services,  similar  to  the  op- 
tometrists and  the  chiropractors,  which  are 
going  to  come  under  direct  and  rigid  gov- 
ernment training  and  supervision.  There's  no 
suggestion,  certainly  in  my  bill  or  the  other 
one,  that  anybody  off  the  street  would  come 
in  and  plunk  down  $10  for  some  sort  of  a 
licence  that  would  enable  him  to  fit  dentures 
and  hang  out  a  shinglte  and  start  deahng  with 
the  public.  Of  course,  that  cannot  be  true 
and  is  not  part  of  the  principle  of  this  bill. 

The  concept  is  similar  to  the  one  put  for- 
ward on  behalf  of  the  government  by  the 
present  Attorney  General  in  his  bill  niun- 
bered  203  in  1972.  We  believe  that  this  is 
what  the  government  must  come  to.  I  would 
simply  say  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  we 
urge  the  Minister  of  Health  in  his  new  posi- 
tion of  authority,  where  he  must  take  sole 
responsibility  for  the  welfare  of  the  people 
—and  there  is  certainly  no  doubt  about  that— 
also  to  take  the  responsibility  to  advise  his 
colleagues  on  the  basis  of  common  sense 
what  the  community  requires,  and  what,  in 
fact,  the  community  demands. 

We're  not  pressing  for  this  bill  to  be  passed 
at  this  time.  We  would  hope  that  it  would 
be,  but  we  would  expect  the  Minister  of 
Health  in  his  wisdom  to  see  the  advantages 
directly  to  the  community  of  Ontario  and 
to  the  taxpayers  in  the  principles  of  the  bills 
before  us  this  afternoon.  We  would  hope 
that  before  this  session  endls  we  wdll  see  a 
change  in  government  policy,  which  is  over- 
due. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Oxford. 

Mr.  H.  C.  Parrott  (Oxford):  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  discussion  on  these  two  bills  that  the 
members  for  Brant  and  Sudbury  have  pre- 
sented cannot  be  significantly  different,  in  my 
view,  from  the  debate  that  was  held  some 
years  ago.  It  is  true  that  certain  things  have 
transpired  in  that  time  but  very  little  has 
changed.  The  basic  arguments  that  were  true 
then  are  true  today. 

Whenever  I  take  part  in  a  debate  of  this 
nature,  it  seems  that  I  am  instantly  accused 
of  having  a  vested  interest  or  a  strong  bias. 
Well,  probably  today  is  no  exception. 

Mr.    F.    Drea    (Scarborough   Centre):    Pull 

some  incisors!  ....       ,..     ,, 

Mr.  Parrot:  I  cannot  deny,  nor  do  I  wish  to 
deny  that  I  am  a  dentist.  And  if  that  puts 
me  into  a  position  of  as  one  having  a  vested 
interest,  or  even  a  conflict  of  interests,  then 


148 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


so  be  it.  But  let  me  assure  the  members  of 
this  House  that  I  do  not  have  a  monopoly 
on  conflict  of  interests  on  this  particular  sub- 
ject. In  my  view,  the  Liberal  caucus  and  the 
leader  of  that  party  sees  this  issue  as  pri- 
marily  a  poHtical  problem. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Does  the  member  mean 
to  say  it  is  good  for  the  people  therefore  we 
might  support  it?  What  are  we  here  for? 

Mr.  Parrot:  I'm  afraid  the  Liberals  have 
not  looked  at  all  of  the  aspects,  some  of 
which  are  far  more  important.  I  suspect  this 
bill  was  prompted  for  purely  political  gain. 

Mr.  M.  Gaunt  (Huron-Bruce):  Oh  no,  we 
would  not  do  it  for  political  gain. 

Mr.  Parrott:  And  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  vested  interest  of  the  leader  of  the 
official  opposition  is  far  greater  than  my  own. 
And  for  quite  different  reasons. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  The  member  sounds  like  a 
dentist.  Is  he? 

Mr.  Parrott:  But  what  is  far  more  impor- 
tant- 
Mr.  Gaunt:  I  think  he  does  have  a  vested 

interest. 

Mr.  Parrott:  Indeed  I  have;  I  admit  that 
readily.  But  I  submit  that  so  does  the  mem- 
ber. But  what  is  far  more  important— 

An  hon.  member:  Too  bad  he  is  a  politician. 

Mr.  Parrott:  What  the  members  opposite 
have  failed  to  see  is  the  true  issue.  It  is 
health,  not  votes,  that  those  members  should 
be  concerned  about  in  these  deliberations. 
Certainly  the  political  implications  should  be 
considered,  but  I  have  yet  to  see  or  hear  the 
Liberal  Party  suggest  any  reforms  or  im- 
provements so  vitally  needed  in  the  de- 
livery of  dental  services.  Instead,  they  seek 
as  usual  the  expedient  rather  than  the  re- 
sponsible approach. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Somebody  wrote  that  for 
him.  One  of  those  creeps  that  sits  under  the 
gallery  has  written  that  for  the  member. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Parrott:  I  would— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Parrott:  It  must  be  hurting.  I  must  be 
on  the  nerve  again. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  Is  the 
member  for  Oxford  going  to  run  federally 
next  time? 


Mr.  Gaunt:  I  know  he  didn't  get  into  the 
cabinet;  but  he  knows  he  will  never  make  it 
telling  the  truth. 

Mr.  Parrott:  The  members  opposite  deal 
with  only  six  per  cent  of  the  dental  services 
of  this  province  and  they  fail  to  consider  the 
other  94  per  cent.  The  making  of  dentures  is 
obviously  important. 

Mr.  Ruston:  He  seems  awfully  worried. 

Mr.  Parrott:  But  in  typical  short-sighted 
fashion,  these  bills  fail  to  propose  the  great 
needs  of  this  province.  I  refer  to  those  things 
that  will  deliver  dental  services  to  all  of  our 
people. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  I  don't  like  the  Minister  of 
Health.  The  member  for  Oxford  should  fire 
him. 

Mr.  Parrott:  Oh,  I'm  disappointed,  too— 

Mr.  J.  E.  Bullbro(^  (Samia):  The  minister 
is  disappointed,  too.  The  member  for  Oxford 
should  have  read  his  speech  before  he  came 
in. 

Mr.  Parrott:  Very  good. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  can  remember  when 
the  member  for  Oxford  made  a  speech  in 
favour  of  this. 

Mr.  Parrott:  I  am  disappointed,  too,  that 
the  hon.  member  has  not  seen  fit  to  propose 
much-needed  changes  relative  to  the  vast 
majority  of  dental  auxiliaries.  We*  talked 
about  it  very  briefly.  Rather,  he  has  chosen 
to  focus  on  a  very  small  portion,  something 
in  the  range  of  two  per  cent  of  all  those 
people,  other  than  dentists  —  and  I  repeat, 
other  than  dentists  —  but  simply  two  per 
cent  of  those  who  are  involved  in  the  deliv- 
ery of  dental  services  in  auxiliary  roles. 

In  fact,  the  whole  debate  on  this  contro- 
versial subject  seems  to  have  forgotten  some 
6,000  dental  assistants,  some  500-plus  dental 
hygienists,  and  some  1,300  dental  technicians 
and  their  employees.  The  opposition  has  for- 
gotten that  large  segment.  In  other  words, 
there  is  a  total  of  nearly  8,000  dtental  auxi- 
liaries who  have  been  forgotten  far  too  long. 
Surely,  all  of  these  properly  trained,  ade- 
quately trained,  and  thoroughly  trained 
people  should  be  given  far  greater  consid- 
eration. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Do  they  want  to  practise 
independently,  too? 

Mr.  Parrott:  We'll  deal  with  that  in  a 
minute.    And  may  I  repeat  that  those  who 


MARCH  11,  1974 


149 


feel  I  have  a  vested  interest  in  this  subject 
might  be  right. 

Mr.  E.  Sargent  (Grey-Bruce):  Who  does 
the  member  buy  his  teeth  from? 

Mr.  Parrott:  But  again,  I  say  to  those  mem- 
bers opposite  who  would  deal  with  such  a 
small  segment  of  the  problem,  it  is  small  in 
comparison.  Why  don't  they  get  with  it? 
Why  don't  we  plan  for  the  8,000  auxiliaries- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  government  bill 
deals  with  it.    That's  all  it  deals  with. 

Mr.  Parrott:  —and  provide  services  to  save 
teeth,  and  not  be  involved  with  those  prob- 
lems involved  with  those  of  replacing  teeth? 
Let's  plan  how  we  can  assist  those  people 
who  cannot  aflFord  dentistry. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That's  another  dental 
Act. 

Mr.  Parrott:  Let's  plan  to  utilize  the  large 
number   of  people   in   the   dental   auxiliaries 
who  have  been  well  trained- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Denticare? 

An  hon.  member:   That's  anotiier  type  of 

cavity—        ,. ,  , 

Mr.  Parrott:  —and  increase  the  productivity 
of  the  thousands  of  dental  oflBces  by  the  use 
of  these  auxiliaries.  Certainly  I'm  prepared 
to  use  the  dental  therapists  or  the  denturists, 
whichever  you  wish  to  call  them,  but  let's 
plan  to  use  them  in  a  team  approach  and 
to  utilize  all  the  auxiliary  personnel  in  an 
effective  manner. 

Unless  my  NDP  friends  in  the  immediate 
vicinity  here  think  that  they  are  in  a  satis- 
factory position  on  this  subject,  let  me  refresh 
their  memory  on  a  couple  of  items.  May  I 
say  that  I'm  appalled  at  their  lack  of  aggres- 
sive attitude  to  the  rights  of  the  many  people 
and  workers  who  have  been  employed  in 
this  field  of  endeavour. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Taylor  (Prince  Edward- Lennox): 
The  unsung  heroes. 

iMr.  Parrott:  Right.    So  often  the  members 
of   that  party  have  spoken  about  tokenism; 
well,    I    ask  you,   what  kind  of  tokenism   is 
it- 
Mr.  Drea:  They  are  tokenists. 

I  Mr.    Parrott:    —when    there    is    only    one 

male  hygienist  in  a  register  of  nearly  600, 
or  few  if  any  of  the  6,000  auxiliaries  have 
a  male  receptionist  or  assistant?  You  know, 
it  works  both  ways. 


Mr.  F.  Laughren  (Nickel  Belt):  Is  that  our 
fault? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.    Parrott:    But   I   ask   them,    why   have 
they  not  championed-  the  cause  of  the  dental 
hygienist  who,  as  they  know- 
Mr.    Laughren:    My   friend  is   full   of  red 
herrings. 

'Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Parrott:  At  least  the  dental  hygienist 

is  by  far  the  most  trained  person- 
Mr.  Stokes:  Pretty  weak.    This  is  a  pretty 

weak  defence  of  government  policy. 

Mr.  Parrott:  I  am  amazed'  they  haven't 
championed  the  cause  of  the  dental  hygien- 
ist, who  has  taken  her  formal  training  and 
has  been  a  great  asset  in  the  delivery  of 
dental  services. 

Mr.  R.  Gisbom  (Hamilton  East):  I  remem- 
ber when  the  hon.  member  supported  us  on 
this.   Can't  he  reflect  back? 

Mr.  Parrott:  I've  always  been  in  the  same 
position,  and  my  friend  knows  it.  I've  been 
in  the  same  position;  his  party  vacillated. 

Mr.  Drea:  The  member  for  Oxford  should 
work  in  the  same  place  as  he  does. 

Mr.  Parrott:  You  know,  those  of  us  who 
are  a  little  more  involved  with  this  process 
realize  that  a  hygienist  is  perhaps  the  one 
person  who  is  overtrained  and  under-utilized 
and  yet  painfully  not  available  to  those  who 
are  in  the  direct  business  of  delivering  dental 
services  to  the  people  of  Ontario. 

Mr.  BuUbrook:  Dentists  are  never  pain- 
fully not  available;  they  are  painfully  avail- 
able. 

Mr.  Parrott:  I  said  the  hygienist,  if  my 
friend  from   Sarnia  would  listen. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  dental  laboratory 
technicians  are  another  large  segment,  and 
the  NDP  too  have  ignored  their  plight. 
There  are  1,300  of  them,  and  their  livelihood 
is  at  stake.  The  dentists  wiU  go  on  with  or 
without  denture  practice.  But  I'm  telling  you 
that  the  dental  laboratory  field  is  in  very 
grave  condition.  In  fact,  I  doubt  if  very 
many  of  the  so-called  experts  who  have 
spoken  on  this  recognize  the  difference  be- 
tween a  dental  technician  and  a  denture 
therapist.  I  feel  sorry  for  those  1,300  people 
who  have  no  one  to  speak  for  them,  and 
I    protest   on    their    behalf.    Their   livelihood 


150 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


is   at  stake  and  the  members  opposite  hav^ 
failed  to  recognize  this. 

What  we  are  witnessing  here  in  these  kind 
of  bills  is  a  fragmentation  of  dentistry,  and 
I  suggest  that  what  we  need  is  not  frag- 
mentation but  indeed  a  team  approach.  If 
we  are  going  to  go  on  with  the  proposal  as 
suggested  here,  that  the  denture  therapist 
work  by  himself,  why  not  let  the  dental 
hygienist  and  the  next  auxiliary  work  by 
themselves? 

Mr.    Speaker:    Sixty   seconds    remaining. 

Mr.  Parrott:  But  that  will  fragment  all 
of  the  profession,  and  I'm  saying  that  wiU 
be  the  greatest  disservice  we  could  possibly 
do.  If  we  are  going  to  have  one,  we  should 
permit  the  others;  and  if  not,  then  we  should 
have  all  of  them  in  a  team  approach. 

In  closing,  let  me  hazard  a  guess  as  to 
why  so  many  of  these  people  are  ignored. 
It  is  because  there  are  so  many  dollars  avail- 
able to  a  few  denturists  w'ho  have  so  much 
to  gain  by  this  bill  and  at  the  same  time, 
by  a  few  politicians  who  are  far  more  in- 
terested in  votes  than  they  are  in  teeth. 

I  want  change  as  much  as  anyone  else  in 
this  field,  and  I  want  dental  services  available 
to  all  the  people.  But  I  want  those  services 
available  from  a  team  approach  and  I  want 
them  available  now,  and  the  concepts  in 
these  two  bills  certainly  won't  do  that  job. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Park- 
dale. 

Mr.  J.  Dukszta  (Parkdale):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  am  continuously  fascinated  by  the  ability 
of  the  medical  profession  and,  at  the  moment, 
the  dental  profession  to  mystify  and  to  myth- 
ologize  what  is  often  a  quite  simple  matter. 
I  agree  vwth  the  member  for  Oxford  that 
we  need  a  team  effort,  but  what  he  proposes 
is  a  team  effort  under  almost  complete 
domination  of  one  profession.  We  are  speak- 
ing now  in  respect  of  the  dental  field.  A 
dentist  has  an  overwhelming  lead  over 
almost  everyone  else.  This  is  not  what  is 
called  a  team  effort  under  any  condition. 

This  ability  to  mystify  extends  itself  from 
a  very  simple  matter.  One  of  the  old  argu- 
ments used  in  an  attempt  to  prevent  a  den- 
turist  making  dentures  was  that  a  denturist 
is  unable  to  deal  with  major  oral  pathology 
in  the  mouth.  The  first  diagnostician  of  any 
major  pathology,  or  any  pathology  at  all, 
in  the  mouth  is  always  the  patient.  He  says 


there  is  something  bothering  him  and  he  is 
going  to  see  a  guy  to  deal  with  the  pain  in 
his  mouth.  There  is  no  real  major  problem 
of  defining  what  the  problem  is.  You  feel  the 
pain  and  you  go  and  see  someone  about  it. 

Both  the  medical  and  the  dental  profes- 
sions have  always  produced  this  element  of 
mystery  in  an  attempt  to  make  sure  that  only 
the  profession  can  deal  with  it.  The  whole 
field  of  both  medicine  and  dentistry  is  mov- 
ing now  toward  participation  of  the  patient, 
participation  of  the  community,  in  spreading 
the  involvement  in  the  practice  itself  to  the 
paraprofessionals,  yet  the  government,, 
prompted  very  strongly  by  the  dental  pro- 
fession, has  moved  in  a  retrograde  action  to- 
stem  that  new  tide.  Almost  all  of  our  tech- 
nology, all  of  our  theoreticians,  state  over 
and  over  again  that  we  must  in  fact  have 
other  people  besides  the  actual  professional 
delivering  the  service.  And  it  is  not  enough 
to  deliver  the  service  as  an  extension,  as  an 
arm  of  a  dentist  or  a  physician;  you  have  to- 
train  the  other  people  to  deliver  the  service 
in  a  more  autonomous  fashion  so  that  he  or 
she  gets  the  job  satisfaction  and  can  do  the 
job  better. 

Nobody  denies  that  you  need  training  for 
almost  anything  pertaining  to  the  ailments 
of  the  human  body.  We  need  training  just  as 
much  for  a  denture  therapist  as  we  need  it 
for  a  physician.  The  point  I'm  trying  to  make 
is  that  to  make  dentures  for  a  teeth-free 
mouth  is  a  fairly  simple  matter.  It  does  not 
necessarily  involve  six  years  of  training  or 
extensive  training  as  a  denture  therapist,  nor 
does  it  involve  an  expensive  procedure,  as 
the  dentists  have  claimed  it  does.  It  is  a 
fairly  simple  matter. 

Though  the  denture  therapists  or  denturists 
need  some  training  they  are  quite  willing  to 
do  it,  but  they  have  to  be  able  to  practise 
autonomously  afterwards.  It  is  a  simple  mat- 
ter and  it  would  well  behove  the  new 
Minister  of  Health  if  he  perceived  this— that 
we  need  not  more  professionalization  of  the 
field  but  that  we  need  less  professionalization. 
We  need  a  more  open  health  delivery  system 
in  which  the  various  members  of  the  team 
function  in  an  integrated  fashion  but  function 
more  autonomously  of  each  other.  This  whole 
concept  of  a  team  effort  is  that  the  people 
co-operate  as  a  team,  not  as  if  they  were 
in  a  military  platoon  in  which  there  is  only 
one  leader  and  everyone  else  obeys  orders  in- 
stantaneously. 

I  know  that  even  to  debate  this  private 
members'  bill  seems  like  an  academic  and 
intellectual  exercise,  but  both  myself  and  the 
member  for  Sudbury  stand  up  to  say  that  our 


MARCH  11,  1974 


151 


approach  toward  the  denturist  is  only  part  of 
our  approach  to  the  whole  health  field,  and 
we  state  that  we  must  move  toward  a  more 
intense  community  involvement,  more  intense 
usage  of  paraprofessionals  and  more  intense 
participation  of  the  patient  himself. 

I  speak  in  support  of  this  bill  as  a  part 
of  an  overall  support  to  the  long  overdue 
change  in  the  health  field.  And  though  it's 
truly  a  small  group  we  are  speaking  of  it  is 
very  significant  in  terms  of  the  whole  ap- 
proach which  the  government  has  shown  up 
to  now  in  ignoring  what  are  the  major  prob- 
lems in  the  health  care  delivery  system.  May 
I  say  again  that  it  behoves  the  minister  well 
to  listen  to  some  of  the  remarks  that  people 
have  made  so  far  because  the  whole  matter 
has  been  blown  out  of  all  proportion.  It 
would  be  a  most  graceful  thing  if  he  with- 
drew it  or  (^hanged  it  or  introduced  a  new 
bill  which  would  allow  the  group  to  practise, 
after  suitable  training,  what  it  wants  to  do 
which  is  to  make  cheap  dentures  for  the 
people  who  need  them. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Wind- 
sor-Walkerville. 

Mr.  B.  Newman  (Windsor-Walkerville): 
Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  rise  in  support  of 
Bill  5,  An  Act  to  provide  for  the  Practice  of 
Dental  Prosthesis,  as  submitted  by  my  leader, 
and  to  support  Bill  2,  An  Act  to  amend  the 
Denture  Therapists  Act. 

Either  one  of  the  two  bills,  I  think,  would 
resolve  the  issue  of  the  dentists  and  den- 
turists.  There  is  hardly  one  of  us  in  the 
House  who  hasn't  over  the  past  two  years— 
especially  approximately  a  year  or  two  ago- 
received  not  one  but  hundreds  of  letters  from 
both  sides  of  the  issue,  both  from  the  in- 
dividuals requiring  the  services  of  denturists 
as  well  as  those  who  required  the  services  of 
dentists. 

However,  in  my  own  particular  riding,  for 
every  one  letter  that  I  received  in  support  of 
the  approach  taken  by  the  dentist  I  received 
approximately  four  from  people  who  had  had 
to  use  the  services  of  denturists,  and  found 
them  to  be  most  efficient;  found  them  to  be 
satisfactory;  likewise,  found  them  to  be 
within  their  financial  means. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  legislation  originally 
started  on  June  26,  1972,  when  the  then 
Provincial  Secretary  for  Social  Development 
( Mr.  Welch )  introduced  the  original  bill 
permitting  denturists  to  deal  directly  with 
the  public.  This  is  just  as  it  should  have 
been  and  we  assumed  that  the  government 
was    going    to    follow    on    with    its    original 


plan.  However,  on  Dec.  5,  I  recall  I  noted 
at  the  time,  when  the  Minister  of  Health 
(Mr.  Potter)  submitted  amendments  to  Bill 
203  his  amendments  were  in  direct  opposi- 
tion to  the  intent  of  the  bill  and  I  brought 
it  to  your  attention.  Others  spoke  on  that 
also,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  as  a  result  that  bill 
was  withdrawn  and  the  government  intro- 
duced Bill  246  on  July  6. 

On  Dec.  5,  the  Minister  of  Health  made 
the  proverbial  flip-flop  and  from  being  in 
support  of  denturists  working  by  themselves 
and  dealing  directly  with  the  pubHc,  he  in- 
troduced legislation  that  would  require  them 
to  work  under  the  supervision  of  a  dentist. 

From  July  6,  1973,  until  January,  1974, 
the  denturists  continued  to  practise  without 
any  crackdown  on  the  part  of  the  Attorney 
General's  office.  However,  after  the  biU  had 
been  in  force  for  13  months  the  government 
decided  it  was  going  to  raid  selectively 
certain  denturists'  clinics  in  an  attempt  to 
crack  doMTi  on  the  denturists  operating  in 
open  defiance  of  the  law.  Why  selectively, 
Mr.  Speaker?  Surely,  if  the  ministry  thought 
that  the  denturists  were  openly  defying  the 
law  and  were  not  performing  the  services 
of  which  they  were  capable,  the  ministry 
should  have  gone  after  every  single  one  of 
the  denturists  operating  throughout  the  Prov- 
ince of  Ontario. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  former  minister's  tactics 
on  this  issue  can  really  be  said  to  be  nothing 
but  deplorable.  I  am  sure  that  now  the  new 
minister— and  the  former  minister  as  well  as 
the  government— knows  that  Bill  246  is  a 
piece  of  bad  legislation  the  new  minister  is 
having  second  thoughts  and  is  trying  his 
darnedest  right  now  to  turn  back  the  clock 
to  June  26,  1972,  when  the  original  bill, 
which  permitted  denturists  to  deal  directly 
with  the  pubhc  was  introduced. 

Mr.  Speaker,  ads  in  the  papers  even  today 
still  carry  the  name  of  the  hon.  Mr.  Potter 
as  being  the  Minister  of  Health.  I  know  the 
new  minister  will  see  to  it  that  those  ads 
are  no  longer  carried  and  that  the  govern- 
ment will  withdraw  its  original  legislation  or 
accept  the  legislation  that  has  been  intro- 
duced by  my  leader  and  make  it  a  piece 
of  government  legislation. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  concern  of  the  public 
was  so  great  that  they  presented  hundreds 
of  petitions  to  various  members  throughout 
the  length  and  breadth  of  the  province.  I  will 
read  only  a  few  comments,  a  few  lines  out 
of  some  of  the  letters. 

The  price   I   was    quoted   was   $500.   It 

is  far  beyond  the  reach  of  the  lower-income 


152 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


bracket  and  the  senior  citizens.  Having  a 
set  of  dentures  made  by  a  denturist,  I 
was  extremely  happy  with  the  end  result. 

[A  second]  Our  province  is  one  of  the 
most  developed  of  all  provinces.  Should 
it  be  necessary  for  a  denturist  to  face  a 
jail  term?  In  the  rest  of  Canada,  this  prac- 
tice has  been  made  legal. 

[A  third  comment  talking  about  a  den- 
turisi]  I  feel  he  is  quite  capable  of  his 
work.  He  has  been  doing  the  same  thing 
for  dentists  as  he  is  doing  now.  Why  can't 
he  do  it  for  himself? 

[A  fourth  comment]  Why  is  it  necessary 
for  a  denturist  in  Ontario  to  face  up  to  a 
possible  two  years  in  jail  term  when  in 
other  provinces,  both  in  the  east  and  the 
west  of  us,  this  practice  has  been  made 
legal?  I  think  it  is  about  time  the  legisla- 
tion realized  the  needs  of  the  province  in 
this  matter. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  could  come  albng  and  read 
from  probably  200  different  letters  that  I 
have  received.  However,  I  would  like  to 
close  and  allow  the  member  from  the  gov- 
ernment side  to  make  his  comments.  I  sug- 
gest to  you,  Mr.  Stpeaker,  as  well  as  to  the 
members  on  the  government  benches  to  put 
common  sense  behind  their  thinking  on  Bill 
246,  realize  that  they  have  made  a  mistake, 
admit  they  have  made  a  mistake,  accept  the 
bill  introduced  by  my  leader,  resolve  the 
problems  once  and  for  all  and  allow  the 
denturists  to  work  as  they  have  requested. 

No  one  for  one  minute  would  say  that 
the  denturist  should  not  be  fully  qualified. 
We  agree  with  their  qualifications  except 
that  we  think  that  they  have  been  doing  a 
good  job  in  the  past,  The)^  are  responsible 
people.  They  are  not  fly-by-night  operators 
and  they  should  be  allowed  to  continue  as 
they  have  prior  to  the  passing  of  Bill  246. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough Centre. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  What  did  we  do  to 
deserve  this? 

Mr.  Drea:  The  member  wanted  it  and 
now  we're  going  to  have  to  take  it.  Mr. 
Speaker,  if  I  could  just  start  off  on  a  pleasant, 
conciliatory  note,  the  government  and  partic- 
ularly the  members  in  this  row  of  the  gov- 
ernment have  always  prided  themselves  upon 
abundant  common  sense.  That  is  why  we 
want  no  part  of  either  one  of  these  two  bills 
which  were  conceived  in  moments  of  frus- 
tration. 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I'd  sooner  hear  the  mem- 
ber for  Wellington-Duff erin  (Mr.  Root)  than 
the  member  for  Scarborough  Centre  if  he 
wants  a  common  sense  man. 

Mr.  Drea:  Oh,  I  am  a  common  sense  man, 
but  after  listening  to  what  the  Leader  of  the 
Opposition  churned  out  in  the  middle  of  the 
afternoon,  it's  enough  to  make  anybody  frus- 
trated. I  can  understand  the  frustration  that 
was  there  when  he  found  two  bills  combined 
into  one  and  had  to  limit  his  remarks  to  a 
few  moments.  I  have  only  got  four  minutes 
andi  I  want  to  make  some  points  about  com- 
mon sense. 

IFirst,  how  can  you  equate  the  training 
that  a  dentist  or  a  dental  surgeon  goes 
through  with  the  training  that  there  is  for  a 
denturist  or  a  denture  therapist?  If  you  want 
to  tell  me,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  all  the  train- 
ing one  needs  to  work  on  the  inside  of  one's 
mouth  is  so  far  not  even  a  single  course, 
then,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  suggest  to  you  we  are 
into  the  element  that  common  sense  is  being 
defied. 

Secondly,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  has  to  be 
an  element  of  control  in  the  situation,  and 
indeed  the  denturists  themselves  admit  that 
there  is  a  very  essential  need*  for  control. 
They  propose  that  a  certificate  of  oral  health 
be  obtained  from  either  a  dentist,  a  dental 
surgeon  or  a  medical  practitioner  prior  to 
themselves  operating  and  providing  dentures 
inside  the  mouth.  This  is  a  very  frank  ad- 
mission, and  I  respect  the  denturists  for  this, 
but  it  is  a  very  candid  admission  that  they 
have  not  been  specifically  trained  to  cope 
with  the  very  many  oral  diseases. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  They  are 
not  pretending  to  be. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  didn't  suggest  they  were.  I 
said  they  are  admitting  they  are  not  quali- 
fied. My  friend,  the  Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion, if  he  had  any  common  sense,  that  is 
why  he  should  go  along  with  the  government 
position  because  our  concern  is  about  the 
protection  of  the  individual. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  member  supported 
the  government  position  when  it  was  just  the 
opposite.  He  supported  the  original  bill 
too.  He  doesn't  know  what  he  is  going  to 
support.  He  will  support  whatever  they  tell 
him  from  the  front  bench. 

Mr.  Drea:  I  didn't  support  the  original 
bill.  If  there  was  any  common  sense  over 
there,  they  would  support  our  position  be- 
cause our  position  is  quite  basic. 


MARCH  11,  1974 


153 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  The  member  still  sup- 
ports  anything   the   front  bench   tell   him. 

iMr.  Drea:  We  want  control  and  there  is 
going  to  be  control  on  people  who  by  the 
necessity  of  their  occupation  have  to  deal 
with  the  inside  of  the  human  mouth.  I  was 
on  that  committee  that  heard  all  of  the 
representations.  There's  one  that  comes  back 
to  me  over  and  over  again— and  it  wasn't  me 
who  asked  a  particular  person  —  how  does 
one  determine  if  there  is  anything  wrong  on 
the  inside  of  the  mouth?  That  person,  a 
denturist,  said,  "I  put  my  flashlight  in  and 
I  take  a  look."  Mr.  Speaker,  at  that  point 
common  sense  told  me— 

Mr.  Gisbom:  Does  the  member  think  he 
would  put  his  foot  in? 

Mr.  Drea:  —that  these  people  should 
operate  under  the  supervision  of  a  qualified 
dentist  or  dental  surgeon.  I  agree  some  of 
the  denturists  are  qualified.  I  agree  a  num- 
ber of  them  have  taken  a  particular  course 
and  will  pass  the  examinations  that  have 
been  set  up  by  this  Legislature.  But,  Mr. 
Speaker,  when  there  is  no  formal  edtication 
programme  yet  for  a  denturist— 

An  Hon.   member:   Whose  fault? 

Mr.  Drea:  It  certainly  isn't  my  fault.  If 
there's  been  such  demand  for  it  over  the 
years,  where  is  it? 

Mr.  Rreithaupt:  The  member  is  putting 
his  mouth  where  his  money  is! 

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  no  formal 
education  course  yet  for  denturists.  There 
is  a  very  brief  upgrading  course.  There  are 
courses  that  will  take  a  lab  technician  or 
someone  who  has  had  a  considerable  amount 
of   experience   with   the  fabrication   of   den- 


tures and  will  put  him  into  a  position  where 
he  can  work  under  the  supervision  of  a 
dentist  who  has  been  very  carefully  and 
very  expensively  trained  to  do  his  job  for 
society.  I  think  that  is  the  essence  of  the 
government  legislation.  That  is  not  to  say 
that  at  some  future  time,  with  a  proper  con- 
trol mechanism,  a  proper  education  mechan- 
ism and  a  number  of  things  that  my  col- 
league from  Oxford  has  talked  about,  the 
opportunity  for  the  denture  therapist  or  the 
denturist  or  the  other  people  in  dentistry 
to  operate  independently  may  not  be  here. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  about  15  seconds  left 
and  I  want  to  make  the  final  crushing  point 
of  the  day. 

Mr.  Rreithaupt:  Thanks  for  the  warning! 

Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  about  an  hour  and 
10  minutes  ago  this  party  was  told  there 
should  be  a  single  rollback  on  a  price  and 
how  much  better  we  would  feel.  It  was  this 
party  and  it  was  the  former  health  minister, 
who  did  achieve  a  price  rollback. 

Mr.  Rreithaupt:  On  what? 

Mr.  Drea:  The  reas'on  I  bring  it  up  is  it  is 
in  this  field.  It  was  through  the  eff^orts  of 
the  minister  and  this  government  and  this 
party  that  there  is  now  a  guaranteed  price 
of  $180  for  dentures  done  by  a  dentist  en- 
rolled under  the  plan  that  the  minister 
originated.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  must  concede  to 
the  leader  of  the  NDP  that  the  entire  party 
not  only  does  feel  better,  we  have  felt  better 
for  one  long  time. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell  moves  the  adjourn- 
ment of  the"  House. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjourned  at  6  o'clock,  p.m. 


154  ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


CONTENTS 

Monday,  March  11,  1974 

Consolidated  Computer  Inc.,  statement  by  Mr.  Bennett  107 

Withdrawal   of  teachers'   services,   questions   of  Mr.   Davis:    Mr.   Deacon,   Mr.   Lewis, 

Mr.  W.  Hodgson,  Mr.  Foulds,  Mr.  B.  Newman  108 

Consolidated  Computer  Inc.,  question  of  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Deacon  110 

Management    Board    orders,    questions    of    Mr.    Winkler:    Mr.    Deacon,    Mr.    Singer, 

Mr.    Cassidy    Ill 

Law     Reform     Commission     reports     on     family     law,     questions     of     Mr.     Welch: 

Mr.   Deacon,   Mr.   Lewis,   Mr.   Singer,  Mrs.  Campbell  Ill 

Report  on  mineral  production,  questions  of  Mr.  Bemier:   Mr.  Lewis   114 

Withdrawal  of  teachers'  services,  question  of  Mr.  Wells:   Mr.  Lewis  114 

Tenders  for  civil  service  insurance  package,  questions  of  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Lewis  114 

OHC  budget,  question  of  Mr.  Handleman:   Mr.  Lewis  115 

Day  Nurseries  Act  regidations,  questions  of  Mr.  Brunelle:  Mr.  Lewis  115 

Environmental    impact   of  public   works,    questions   of   Mr.   McKeough:    Mr.   Cassidy, 

Mr.  Lewis,  Mr.  MacDonald  115 

Weekend  road  maintenance,  questions  of  Mr.  Bemier:   Mr.  Stokes  117 

Ontario  Building  Code,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:  Mr.  Givens,  Mrs.  Campbell  117 

Physiotherapists'  fees,  questions  of  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Shulman,  Mr.  Good  118 

Vehicles  on  consignment,  questions  of  Mr.  Clement:   Mr,  EdighoflFer  119 

Hydro  board  appointments,  question  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Stokes  119 

Correctional   centre  training,  question  of  Mr.  Potter:   Mr.  Worton  119 

Resale  of  HOME  programme  houses,  questions  of  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Deans  120 

Provincial  park  at  Papineau  Lake,  questions  of  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Good  120 

Negotiations  on  behalf  of  community  colleges,  question  of  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Bounsall  120 

Presenting  reports,  Ontario  Law  Reform  Commission  re  family  property  law,  children, 

and  family  courts,   Mr.   Welch   121 

Presenting  report,  re  York  county  board  of  education  and  the  OSSTF,  Mr.  Winkler  ....  122 

Presenting  copy,  order  of  the  Lieutenant  Governor  in  Council,  Mr.  Welch  122 

Tabling,  report  re  investment  policies  of  the  municipal  employees'  retirement  system, 

Mr.    Irvine    123 

Protection  of  House  Buyers  Act,  bill  intituled,  Mr.  Givens,  first  reading  123 

Resumption  of  the  debate  on  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  Mr.  Lewis  123 


MARCH  11,  1974  155 


Motion  to  adjourn  debate,   Mr.  Wardle,  agreed  to   142 

Private  members'  hour  142 

Denture    Therapists    Act;    Practice    of    Dental    Prosthesis    Act,    on    second    reading, 

Mr.  Germa,  Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon,  Mr.  Parrott,  Mr.  Dukszta,  Mr.  B.  Newman,  Mr.  Drea  142 

Motion  to  adjourn,  Mr.  Timbrell,  agreed  to 153 


No.  6 


Ontario 


Ht^i^Mnxt  of  Ontario 
©eliateg 

OFFICIAL  REPORT  —  DAILY  EDITION 
Fourth  Session  of  the  Twenty-Ninth  Legislature 


Tuesday,  March  12,  1974 


Speaker:  Honourable  Allan  Edward  Reuter 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


THE  QUEEN'S  PRINTER 

PARLIAMENT  BUILDINGS,  TORONTO 

1974 


Price  per  session,  $10.00.  Address,  Clerk  of  the  House,  Parliament  Bldgs.,  Toronto 


CONTENTS 


(Daily  index  of  proceedings  appears  at  back  of  this  issue.) 


159 


LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  today  at  2  o'clock,  p.m. 
Prayers. 

Mr.  M.  C.  Germa  (Sudbury):  May  I  take 
this  opportunity  of  introducing  to  the  House 
150  students  from  Wembley  Senior  Public 
School  in  the  city  of  Sudbury,  accompanied 
by  10  adults.  The  party  is  under  the  direction 
of  Mr.  Wayne  Bailey. 

This  large  group  of  students  and  parents 
have  journeyed  from  the  city  of  Sudbury  to 
be  with  us  this  afternoon. 

Mr.  Speaker:   Statements  by  the  ministry? 


LAW  REFORM  COMMISSION  REPORT 
ON  FAMILY  LAW 

Hon.  R.  Welch  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Justice  and  Attorney  General ) :  I  would  like 
to  clarify  for  the  hon.  members  of  this  House 
some  comments  that  were  made  yesterday 
during  the  question  period.  Following  a  short 
briefing  with  members  of  my  staff,  I  was 
under  the  impression  that  all  representatives 
of  the  media  who  received  advance  copies  of 
the  three  reports  of  the  Law  Reform  Com- 
mission tabled  yesterday  had  first  approached 
us  to  request  those  reports. 

In  subsequent  discussions  I  have  now 
learned  that  this  was  not  the  case  with  one 
media  representative.  I  wish  to  correct  at  this 
time  any  wrong  impression  that  my  comments 
of  yesterday  may  have  left  with  members  of 
the  House. 

Mr.  V.  M.  Singer  (Downsview):  The  min- 
ister created  several. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Oral  questions.  The  hon. 
Leader  of  the  Opposition. 


ROOMING  HOUSE  SAFETY  STANDARDS 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): In  the  absence  of  the  Premier  (Mr. 
Davis)  and  the  Minister  of  Education  (Mr. 
Wells),  I  wiU  ask  a  question  of  the  Minister 
of  Housing,  to  inquire  whether  he  has  taken 
any  decision  himself,  or  consulted  with  his 
colleagues,  about  the  obvious  need  for  some 


Tuesday,  March  12,  1974 

imposition  of  province-wide  standards  for 
rooming  house  safety.  Does  he  believe  this 
can  be  left  entirely  to  the  municipalities  con- 
cerned or  isi  there,  in  fact,  some  thought  that 
a  provincial  intrusion  in  this  matter  might  be 
warranted  under  the  circumstances  that  saw 
the  death  of,  I  believe  seven  people  in 
Toronto  last  week? 

Hon.  S.  B.  Handleman  (Minister  of  Hous- 
ing): Mr.  Speaker,  this  matter  has  not  been 
discussed  in  the  ministry  during  my  tenure.  I 
certainly  would  be  pleased  to  raise  it  with  the 
staff,  to  ascertain  first  of  all  what  our  powers 
are  and  how  the  matter  is  handled.  I  would 
be  glad  to  receive  suggestions  from  the  hon. 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  as  to  how  he  thinks 
this  matter  might  be  handled.  I  am  prepared 
to    accept    reasonable    suggestions    from   any 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Would 
the  minister  not  agree  that,  while  this  would 
not  form  a  part  of  a  provincial  building  code 
directly,  it  could  very  well  take  the  form  of 
something  that  could  be  a  provincial  safety 
code  which  could  establish  the  minimum  re- 
quirements for  the  municipalities  to  live  up 
to,  and  if  necessary  provide  an  inspection 
service,  at  least  on  demand,  for  citizens  who 
might  be  concerned  that  it  appears  the  matter 
is  not  being  adequately  looked  after  at  the 
municipal  level? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  my 
limited  understanding  of  the  problem  is  that 
there  are  very  few  competent  housing  inspec- 
tors available  to  the  municipalities,  and  per- 
haps the  province  can  assist  in  that  respect. 
I  would  like  to  discuss  it  with  my  colleague 
the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations  (Mr.  Clement)  in  regard  to  the 
establishment  of  a  building  code,  because  it 
is  quite  possible  that  a  strengthened  building 
code  might  be  part  of  the  solution. 


SEVERANCE  PAYMENT  TO 
AGENT  GENERAL 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
Chairman  of  the  Management  Board  if  he 
recalls  approving  the  decision  that  resulted  in 
a  full  year's  pay  being  granted  to  the  person 


160 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


formerly  in  charge  of  Ontario  House  in 
London,  England;  which  action  has  been 
recently  criticized  by  the  Provincial  Auditor, 
Was  that  payment  a  severance  payment  the 
Provincial  Auditor  said  was  made  in  contra- 
vention of  provincial  regulations,  was  it  in 
fact  made  simply  to  create  a  vacancy  so  that 
Mr.  Ward  Cornell  could  be  appointed  Agent 
General— Ward  Cornell,  who  was  the  chair- 
man of  the  campaign  committee  for  the 
Treasurer  (Mr.  White), 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  I  doubt  very  much 
if  that  assumption  is  correct,  but  I'll  have  to 
investigate  the  records  to  determine  at  what 
time  the  decision  was  made, 

Mr.  Singer:  By  way  of  supplementary, 
could  the  Chairman  of  Management  Board 
tell  us  why  Mr,  Rowan-Legg,  who  was 
packed  and  on  his  way  back  to  London, 
England,  was  hauled  off  the  plane  and  told 
he  was  being  replaced;  and  whether  that 
sudden  decision  had  anything  to  do  with 
the  inordinate  expenditures  mentioned  by  the 
accountant? 

Hon.    Mr.    Winkler:    I    really    don't    think 
that's  correct  at  all,  but  I'm  not  sure, 
Mr.  Singer:  It  is  correct, 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  The 
government  pays  patronage  every  day  of 
the  week;  sure  it  does, 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  I'm  not  sure  of  that. 
If  that  detail  is  correct  I'll  have  to  have  a 
look  at  it;  but  I  refuse  to  accept  it, 

Mr.  J.  A.  Renwick  (Riverdale):  He  was 
replaced  by  Ward  Cornell, 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Will  the  minister  under- 
take to  report  to  the  House  the  circumstances 
which  led  Management  Board  to  approve 
this  specific  payment?  Would  he  also  report 
to  the  House  on  the  position  taken  by  the 
auditor,  that  it  was  beyond  the  scope  of  the 
regulations  to  permit  severance  payments  of 
that  size,  so  that  in  fact  we  can  have  some 
guidelines  to  go  by,  since  the  government 
seems  to  be  severing  a  good  many  of  its 
high-priced  employees  and  replacing  them 
with  some  of  its  closer  friends? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  I'll  accept  the  question 
as  notice, 

Mr.  J.  E.  Bullbrook  (Samia):  The  minister 
doesn't  dare  sever  the  member  for  Lambton 
(Mr.  Henderson), 

Mr.  Cassidy:  What  about  the  patronage 
appointment  of  the  member  for  Carleton  East 
(Mr.  Lawrence)  which  just  came  about? 


Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Scar- 
borough West. 


APPOINTMENT  OF  CSAO 
ARBITRATION  MEDIATOR 

Mr.  S.  Lewis  (Scarborough  West):  A  ques- 
tion, Mr,  Speaker,  of  the  Chairman  of  Man- 
agement Board:  Can  the  Chairman  of  the 
Management  Board  explain  why,  when  he  was 
informed  on  Feb.  4  by  Mr.  Rose,  the  counsel 
and  registrar  of  the  Ontario  Labour  Manage- 
ment Arbitration  Commission  dealing  in  the 
present  governmental  negotiations  with  the 
Civil  Service  Association  of  Ontario,  that 
Howard  Brov^oa  would  not  be  able  to  be  a 
mediator  in  the  current  items  under  dispute, 
that  to  this  day,  March  12,  there  has  been 
no  response,  either  from  government  or  from 
the  arbitration  commission,  to  the  request 
for  the  appointment  of  another  mediator? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr,  Speaker,  I  am  not 
aware  of  that  subject  matter.  It  probably 
should  be  directed  to  the  Minister  of  Labour 
(Mr.  Guindon),  but  I'll  take  the  question. 

Mrs.  M.  Campbell  (St.  George):  If  he  were 
ever  here, 

Mr.  A.  J.  Roy  (Ottawa  East):  The  minister 
of  who? 

Mr.  Lewis:  I  presume  the  negotiations  with 
the  Civil  Service  Association  have  something 
to  do  with  the  Chairman  of  Management 
Board  and  that  another  five  to  six  weeks  have 
elapsed  in  a  progressively  deteriorating  rela- 
tionship around  a  number  of  important  items; 
I'd  like  to  know  why  the  minister  is  allowing 
that  to  continue, 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  I  have  made  this  state- 
ment before  in  the  House,  Mr.  Speaker.  We 
are  prepared  to  go  to  the  bargaining  table 
at  any  time.  The  items  which  are  under  dis- 
pute are  not  the  fault  of  the  people  who  are 
acting  on  behalf  of  the  Civil  Service  Com- 
mission, 

Mr.  Lewis:  How  is  it  that  five  weeks  elapse 
without  even  a  reply  to  a  letter  requesting 
further  mediation?  Can  the  minister  explain 
that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  No.  I  am  not  aware  of 
that  letter. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Fine. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  I'll  check  the  records 
in  that  regard. 


MARCH  12,  1974 


161 


Mr.  I.  Deans  (Wentworth):  How  does  he 
know? 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  I  will  repeat  that  we 
have  made  our  offers  on  quite  a  number  of 
occasions  and  we  are  prepared  to  return  to 
the  table  on  any  day  that  the  other  side  is 
prepared  to  do  so. 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Unlike  the  member  we 
don't  operate  that  way. 

Mr.  Roy:  No?  Oh  no! 

Mr.  Speaker:  Has  the  hon.  member  for 
Scarborough  West  no  further  questions? 
All  right,  the  hon,  member  for  Downsview, 


LEMOINE  POINT 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  question,  Mr.  Speaker,  of 
the  Minister  of  Natural  Resources:  Is  the 
government  yet  in  a  position  to  make  a  con- 
crete offer  for  Lemoine  Point  to  be  used  as 
a  provincial  park?  Has  that  point  arrived? 

Hon.  L.  Bemier  (Minister  of  Natural  Re- 
sources): No,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are  not  in  that 
position  yet. 

Mr.  Lewis:  By  way  of  supplementary,  do 
I  take  it  that  after  the  appraisal  is  com- 
pleted—I  believe  the  appraisal  is,  in  fact, 
completed— it  is  the  minister's  intention  to 
collaborate  with  the  conservation  authority 
in  the  acquisition  of  the  land? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
not  heard  from  the  conservation  authorities 
or  even  my  own  ministry  with  regard  to  the 
appraisals;  when  that  information  is  received, 
I'll  take  the  appropriate  steps. 


WITHDRAWAL  OF  TEACHERS' 
SERVICES 

Mr.  Lewis:  May  I  ask  the  Premier  if  he 
wishes  to  report  on  any  aspect  of  the  state 
of  affairs  in  York  county  and  the  negotiations 
that  may  or  may  not  be  taking  place?  I  don't 
know. 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  (Premier):  No,  Mr. 
Speaker,  there  is  nothing  new  to  report.  I 
anticipate  the  minister  may  have  something 
to  suggest  to  the  House  a  little  later  on  this 
afternoon. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  A  supplementary:  Is 
the  Premier  indicating  that  the  Minister 
of  Education  will  make  a  statement  or 
simply  introduce  legislation,  or  a  combination 
of  the  two? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr,  Speaker,  the  minister 
will  be  here  fairly  soon,  and  I'm  sure  if 
the  member  for  Brant  wishes  to  ask  a  ques- 
tion he  would  be  quite  prepared  to  answer 
it. 

Mr.  Roy:  It  can't  be  very  good  or  the 
Premier  would  be  making  it  himself. 


ADMINISTRATION  OF  COURTS 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr,  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Attorney  General,  Could  the 
Attorney  General  tell  me  if  he  is  persisting 
in  the  view  held  by  his  predecessor  that  the 
system  for  administration  of  the  courts  should 
be  a  part  of  his  department  rather  than 
an  independent  group,  bearing  in  mind  the 
very  strong  objections  to  this  approach  made 
by  the  treasurer  of  the  Law  Society  of 
Upper  Canada  and  the  very  strong  feelings 
expressed  by  several  members  of  the  judiciary. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  hon. 
member  will  recall  that  at  the  time  of  the 
tabling  of  the  report  dealing  with  that 
subject  matter,  a  fairly  lengthy  statement 
was  made  by  my  predecessor,  which  repre- 
sents government  policy  at  this  moment. 

Mr.  Singer:  Mr.  Speaker,  by  way  of 
supplementary,  is  that  government  policy 
under  review  or  does  it  remain  as  irrevocable 
as  the  laws  of  the  Medes  and  the  Persians? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  part  of 
that  statement,  the  hon.  member  will  recall 
there  was  to  be  a  fair  emphasis  with  respect 
to  consultation  with  all  those  affected.  Indeed, 
the  Speech  from  the  Throne  made  some 
reference  to  that.  Following  a  review  with 
those  who  are  in  fact  interested  in  that 
subject,  and  we  hope  that  interest  would 
be  quite  widespread,  we  would  then  make 
some  further  announcement  insofar  as  im- 
plementation is  concerned. 

Mr.  Singer:  Oh,  so  what  the  minister's 
predecessor  said  is  not  necessarily  effective. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  No,  I  don't  think  that's 
a  fair  assumption,  I  think  the  statement  of 
my  predecessor  has  to  be  taken  in  its 
totality  and  the  question  of  consultation  is 
part  of  that, 

Mr.  Singer:  Oh  yes,  subject  to  consulta- 
tion. 

Mr.   Roy:   Supplementary,   Mr.   Speaker, 

Mr.  Speaker:  Supplementary. 

Mr.  Roy:  If  I  might,  I  would  ask  the 
minister  when  we  can  expect  to  see  legisla- 


162 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Hon  implementing  this  policy  that  he  talked 
about  with  his  predecessor.  Can  we  expect 
it  this  session? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the  hon. 
member  will  recall,  there  was  reference  made 
to  that  in  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  par- 
ticularly the  regionalization  insofar  as  the 
court  system  is  concerned.  Legislation  will 
be  coming  forward.  But  I  want  to  underline 
what  the  Speech  from  the  Throne  said  and 
what  I  have  said  in  response  to  the  hon. 
member  for  Downsview's  question,  that  there 
has  to  be  some  opportunity  for  people 
vitally  interested  in  this  subject  in  fact  to 
make  their  views  known  as  well. 

Mr.  Singer:  Like  the  treasurer  of  the  Law 
Society. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  So  the  actual  timing  of 
this,  of  course,  will  depend  to  some  extent 
on  the  degree  and  the  scale  or  scope  of  that 
type  of  discussion. 

Mr.  Singer:  Yes,  doesn't  that  mean  a 
change  in  policy? 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  Supple- 
mentary: Has  the  new  Attorney  General  had 
an  opportunity  to  read  a  letter  he  got  from 
eminent  members  of  the  legal  profession  in 
Thunder  Bay  asking  him  to  review  the 
previous  stand  taken  by  his  predecessor  and 
to  assure  the  public  generally  that  there 
will  be  no  obvious  or  less-than-obvious  con- 
flict of  interest  between  the  various  factions 
within  the  Attorney  General's  ministry? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  And  all  their  conflicts 
of  interest  in  office. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  certainly 
the  correspondence  to  which  the  hon.  mem- 
ber makes  reference  is  part  of  the  review. 
I  can  assure  the  hon.  member  that  this  will 
be  taken  into  account. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Port 
Arthur  is  next. 


ROUTE  OF  PETROLEUM  PIPELINE 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  A  question, 
Mr.  Speaker,  of  the  Minister  of  Energy:  Did 
the  provincial  cabinet  take  into  account, 
when  it  decided  to  accede  to  the  federal 
government's  decision  to  go  ahead  with  the 
Sarnia-Montreal  oil  pipeline,  the  fact  that  the 
Sault  Ste.  Marie-Montreal  link  ultimately 
would  cost  less  because  it  would  be  an 
integral  part  of  the  all-Canadian  route? 


Hon.  W.  D.  McKeough  (Minister  of 
Energy):  With  respect,  I  am  not  quite  sure 
what  the  member  is  driving  at.  Presumably 
if  one  is  talking  about  miles  of  pipeline,  addi- 
tional pipeline  is  going  to  cost  more,  not  less. 
I  think  what  one  has  to  consider  is  that  the 
pipelines  presently  through  the  United  States, 
either  to  St.  Ignace  and  down  or  around  the 
south  shore  of  Lake  Michigan,  have  to  be 
filled  to  pay  for  them.  I  think  it's  a  real 
possibility  that  if  you  build  more  pipelines, 
then  someone  is  going  to  have  to  pay  for  the 
unfilled  pipelines.  So  I  am  not  sure  that  the 
assumption  on  which  the  member's  question 
is  made  is  entirely  correct.  It  may  well  prove 
to  be,  but  I  am  not  sure  that  at  this  moment 
that's  clear. 

Mr.  Foulds:  In  view  of  the  minister's 
answer,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  in  Ontario 
we  will  ultimately  have  two  pipelines,  one 
coming  through  southern  Ontario  and  one  go- 
ing through  the  north,  does  not  the  govern- 
ment's assumption  of  the  unfilled  pipeline 
cost  factor,  in  fact  indicate  that  the  doubling 
that  it  is  now  going  through  would  lead  to 
those  results? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  The  hon.  member  is 
making  an  assumption— and  I  hope  he's  com- 
pletely right— that  there  will  in  fact  be  oil 
to  fill  both  pipelines.  That  is  not  entirely 
clear  at  this  moment. 

Mr.  Foulds:  A  supplementary  then,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Would  not  the  northern  route  have 
lent  itself  to  the  possibility  of  the  use  of  oil 
from  the  arctic  islands  and  the  Hudson  Bay 
lowlands,  and  thus  save  costs  there  if  those 
finds  prove  to  be  commercial? 

Hon.  Mr.  McKeough:  But  not  to  the  use 

of  oil  which  may  be  found  on  the  east  coast, 
which  at  this  moment  I  think  is  a  better 
probability  than  the  discoveries  which  the 
hon.  member  has  mentioned.  I  hope  we're 
both  right. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Yes,  but  surely— 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Rainy 
River. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Supplementary? 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  I  don't  think  the  member 
is  going  to  get  that  pipeline  up  there. 

Mr.  Foulds:  That's  because  the  member  for 
Samia's  federal  guys  and  those  provincial 
guys  chickened  out! 


MARCH  12,  1974 


163 


EXTENSION  OF  NORONTAIR  SERVICE 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  (Rainy  River):  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  have  a  question  of  thei  Minister  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications  in  regard  to 
the  Throne  Speech  announcing  norOntair  in 
northwestern  Ontario.  Is  the  minister  in  a 
position  to  tell  us  today  those  four  communr 
ities  that  will  be  served  by  this  system  and 
when  the  minister  expects  this  system  will 
come  into  being? 

Hon.  J.  R.  Rhodes  (Minister  of  Transporta- 
tion and  Communications):  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
four  communities  that  were  referredi  to  are 
the  communities  of  Fort  Frances,  Drydten, 
Tliunder  Bay  and  Red  Lake.  Those  are  the 
four  conmiunities.  I  can't  give  the  member  a 
definite  time  when  this  particular  service  vdll 
start.  It  is  being  looked  at  very  seriously  in 
the  ministr}"  at  the  present  time. 

Mr,  Reid:  Spring?  Summer?  Fall? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  I  can't  give  the  member 
a  definite  time.  I  would  hate  to  do  that  be- 
cause I  know  he'll  come  back  at  me  very 
quickly. 

Mr.  Reid:  This  year? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  If  I  may  steal  a  phrase 
from  my  colleague,  the  Minister  of  Health 
(Mr.  Miller),  "in  the  fullness  of  time." 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Sud- 
burv  East. 

Mr.  P.  D.  Lawlor  (Lakeshore):  That  was 
not  \ery  original. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  It  goes  back  before  that 
time. 


ASSISTANCE  TO  EMERGING  SERVICES 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  A  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Conomunity  and  Social 
Services:  Based  on  the  six  recommendations 
made  by  David  Cole  of  the  ministry,  and 
apparently  concurred  in  by  the  Attorney 
General  when  he  held  the  social  policy  min- 
istry, has  the  government  now  decided  how 
it  intends  to  fund  the  emerging  services  which 
are  in  such  financial  straits,  not  only  here  in 
Toronto  but  in  other  parts  of  the  province? 

Hon.  R.  Brunelle  (Minister  of  Community 
and  Social  Services):  Mr.  Speaker,  is  the 
member  referring  to  information  centres?  I 
missed  part  of  his  question.  Which  services 
is  he- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  Boy!  Is  the  minister  ever  in 
touch! 


Mr.  Martel:  I'm  referring  to  the  six 
recommendations  made  by  David  Cole  of 
this  ministry  to  assist  the  emerging  services, 
primarily  the  LIP  groups,  which  have  de- 
veloped into  emergency  services.  Mr.  Cole 
of  the  ministry  has  made  six  recommenda- 
tions. Is  the  government  now  in  a  position 
to  indicate  how  it  intends  to  financially  assist 
these  groups,  which  include  the  information 
services,  but  also  co-ops  and  so  on? 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are 
funding  many  organizations  which  meet  our 
criteria,  and  as  the  hon.  member  probably 
knows  there  will  be  a  meeting  with  the 
various  Metro  groups  with  reference  to  vari- 
ous requested  assets.  This  meeting  will  be 
held  soon.  We  are  presently  funding  several 
of  these  organizations. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Why  doesn't  the  minister 
take  it  as  notice  and  find  out? 

Mr.  Martel:  A  supplementary  question,  Mr. 
Speaker:  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  minis- 
ter is  subsidizing  to  the  tune  of  only  $85,000, 
and  that  all  of  the  agencies  involved  are 
Metro  agencies,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  he  is 
meeting  on  Friday  afternoon,  doesn't  he 
think  the  government  should  be  in  a  position 
at  this  time  to  indicate  to  the  House  how  it 
intends  to  assist  these  groups? 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Mr.  Speaker,  again,  as 
the  hon.  member  mentioned,  we  are  meeting 
this  group  soon  and  we  will  be  indicating  to 
them  what  assistance  will  be  provided. 

Mr.  Martel:  Doesn't  the  minister  think  the 
House  should  know? 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Yes. 

Mr.  Deans:  Doesn't  he  think  we  should 
know? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Water- 
loo North. 


REPORT  ON  CONESTOGA  COLLEGE 

Mr.  E.  R.  Good  (Waterloo  North):  Thank 
you,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Colleges  and  Universities.  Could 
the  minister  inform  the  House  what  action  is 
being  taken  regarding  the  recommendations 
in  Dr.  Porter's  report  on  the  administrative 
problems  at  Conestoga  College? 

Hon.  J.  A.  C.  Auld  (Minister  of  Colleges 
and  Universities):  I  will  attempt  to  do  so  in 
a  day  or  two.  I  haven't  read  the  report  yet, 
but  I  will  find  out  what  is  going  on. 


164 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Roy:   Not  yet?  He  has  been  minister 
for  two  weeks  now. 

Mr.   Speaker:   The  hon.  member  for  Sud- 
bury. 


COST  OF  ADVERTISING 
DENTURE  PROGRAMME 

Mr.  Germa:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Health:  With  reference  to  all 
this  fancy  advertising  I  see  in  the  newspapers 
regarding  the  low-cost  denture  programme, 
could  he  tell  the  House  the  total  cost  of  this 
programme?  And  secondly,  how  does  he 
justify  spending  public  funds  to  promote 
private  business? 

Mr.  R,  F.  Nixon:  The  hon.  member  for 
Ottawa  East  asked  that  earlier  this  week. 

Mr.  Roy:  I  asked  him  that  last  week,  but 
he  didn't  have  a  very  good  answer  for  me. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller  (Minister  of  Health):  He 
didn't  ask  me  that  last  week,  I'm  quite  sure 
of  that. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Let  the  minister  see  il 
he  can  improve  on  the  answer, 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Yes;  the  total  cost  of  the 
programme,  I  am  told,  was  $30,000.  The 
iustification  for  the  programme  would  be  that 
of  almost  any  governmental  programme  of 
information.  A  programme  of  providing  low- 
cost  dentures  was  made  available  and  it  was 
necessary  to  let  the  people  know  about  that 
programme  and  its  availability  in  their  imme- 
diate area. 

Mr.  Martel:  It  is  called  back  scratching. 

Mr.  Roy:  I  am  glad  he  didn't  say,  "in  the 
fullness  of  time." 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  of  Housing 
has  the  answer  to  a  question- 
Mr.  Germa:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  L.  A.  Braithwaite  (Etobicoke):  Supple- 
mentary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Well,  I  think  the  member 
who  asked  the  question  is  entitled  to  one 
supplementary. 

Mr.  Germa:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wonder  how 
the  minister  would  justify  including  the 
names  and  addresses  of  dentists  as  being 
public  information  or  governmental  informa- 
tion? 


Hon.  G.  A.  Kerr  (Solicitor  General):  Den- 
tists serve  the  public,  don't  they? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Interestingly  enough,  a 
number  of  municipalities,  and  particularly 
the  welfare  groups  in  them  and  people  in 
the  communities,  had  clamoured  for  a  listing 
of  the  names  of  the  dentists  who  were  avail- 
able to  provide  the  service  and  who  had 
volunteered  to  do  so. 

Mr.  Roy:  Why  didn't  the  dentists  do  it? 

An   hon.    member:   There   were  only   two. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  think  the  average  is  a 
little  better  than  that.  I  think  probably  one 
out  of  five  licensed  dentists  in  the  Province 
of  Ontario  are  participating.  There  were 
about  600  names. 

Interjections   by   hon.    members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  was  a  supplementary; 
the  hon.  member  for  Etobicoke. 

Mr.  Braithwaite:  Will  the  minister  state 
whether  his  department  condones  the  placing 
of  advertisements  by  private  dentists,  adver- 
tising the  fact  they  have  tbese  technicians? 
And  in  the  light  of  the  same  advertisements 
placed  by  these  dentists,  does  the  830,000 
to  whic^h  the  minister  referred  include  the 
cost  of  these  advertisements  or  have  the 
dentists  paid  for  these  themselves? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I'm  not  specifically  aware 
of  the  privately-placed  advertisements.  I 
understand  that  advertising  by  dentists  as 
such  is  governed  by  the  regulations  written 
by  the  Royal  College  of  Dental  Surgeons  of 
Ontario  and  that  they  would  have  to  operate 
under  the  constraints  of  those  regulations. 

Mr.  Braithwaite:  A  further  supplementary: 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  this  matter  has 
already  been  brought  to  the  attention  of  the 
minister's  predecessor  in  the  House,  and 
since  there  have  been  individual  dentists  who 
have  been  putting  these  sort  of  advertise- 
ments in  local  papers,  would  the  minister 
look  into  this  matter  and  report  back  to  this 
House  as  to  what  steps  his  mmistry  is 
taking? 

Secondly,  I  don't  think  I  got  an  answer  as 
to  whether  or  not  these  ads  have  been  paid 
for  by  the  government  out  of  the  S30,00G 
to  which  the  minister  referred. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  think  the  hon.  member 
and  I  would  need  to  look  at  specific  adver- 
tisements to  decide  what  he  was  talking 
about.    Certainly   we   paid  for  no  advertise- 


MARCH  12,  1974 


165 


merits  otiher  than  the  ones  the  member  for 
Sudbury  has  just  shown  us. 

Mr.  Roy:  A  full-page  ad. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  As  I  understand,  there 
were  some  advertisements  placed  by  the 
Ontario  Dental  Association,  which  did  not 
name  specific  dentists  but,  in  the  main,  gave 
the  fact  that  low-cost  denture  service  was 
available,  and  I  believe  a  number  to  which  a 
person  could  call  for  information.  It  is  also 
my  understanding  that  these  advertisements 
were  paid  for  by  the  association  rather  than 
by  individual  dentists  in  that  group. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  of  Hous- 
ing. 


OHC  BUDGET 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Thank  you,  Mr. 
Speaker.  The  hon.  member  for  Scarborough 
West  asked  yesterday:  In  the  light  of  the 
vigorous  housing  efforts  planned,  Why  have 
the  budget  estimates  of  OHC  dropped  by 
S20  million,  according  to  the  most  recent 
issue-Jan.  31,  1974,  table  5-of  Ontario 
finances?  They  are  down  from  $69  million  to 
$49  million. 

I'm  now  in  a  position  to  advise  the  hon. 
member  that  the  ministry  informed  the 
Treasurer,  for  his  quarterly  report,  that  in  the 
last  quarter  of  the  year  we  were  going  to 
underspend  our  mortgage  requirements  by 
$20  million. 

Mr.  Deans:  Why? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  The  reason  for  this 
is  that  in  the  previous  fiscal  year  OHC 
stopped  lending  money  on  high-rise  con- 
dominiums since  there  were  adequate  private 
funds  flowing  into  that  area  of  the  housing 
market  and  the  supply  of  such  housing  at 
that  time  was  sufficient.  This  decision  re- 
sulted in  lower  commitments  of  funds  and 
hence  lower  cash  flows  for  1973-1974.  It  has 
no  bearing  on  our  budget  for  1974-1975. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lewis:  A  supplementary:  Is  the  min- 
ister telling  the  House  then  that  there  wasn't 
sufficient  imagination  within  the  Ontario 
Housing  Corp.,  or  within  the  Ministry  of 
Housing,  to  find  an  alternative  use  for  the 
$20  million,  given  the  housing  crisis  in  On- 
tario? Are  they  that  bankrupt  as  a  depart- 
ment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
was   not   suggesting  that   at   all.    I    am   sug- 


gesting that  there  was  a  change  in  the  cash 
flow  and  the  mortgaging  requirements  of 
OHC. 

Mr.  Singer:  Oh  nonsense. 

Mr.  Lewis:  The  money  was  dormant;  like 
everything  else  in  housing. 

Mr.  Deans:  I  think  to  say  there  were  not 
sufficient  people  looking  for  mortgages- 
Mr.   Speaker:   Is  this   a  supplementary? 
Mr.  Deans:  I  did  say  that.  I'm  sorry. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Well  there  was  so  much 
noise  I  didn't  hear  the  hon.  member.  If  that 
was  a  supplementary  ITl  permit  it. 

Mr.  Deans:  Is  the  minister  saying  that 
there  were  not  sufficient  numbers  of  people 
looking  for  mortgages  that  that  $20  million 
couldn't  have  been  utilized? 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is 
not  a  function  of  OHC  to  supplement  the 
mortgage  market  in  this  province. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Of  course  it  is.  That  is  what 
the  money  was  there  for. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  The  hon.  members 
would  have  been  the  first  to  complain  if  we 
had  diverted  mortgage  money  from  one  area 
to  another  without  the  authority. 

Mr.  Lewis:  No  we  would  not. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Of  course  the\ 
would. 

Mr.  Lewis:  On  a  point  of  order:  We  would 
not  have  complained  had  the  minister  di- 
verted that  mortgage  money  from  condomin- 
iums into  low-  or  middle-income  housing, 
not  at  all. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Why  didn't  he? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Kent. 

Mr.  Singer:  Terrible  bankniptcy  of  imag- 
ination. 


U.S.-CANADA  FREIGHT  SURCHARGE 

Mr.  J.  P.  Spence  (Kent):  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
have  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications.  Is  the  minis- 
ter aware  that  two  weeks  ago  the  United 
States   interstate    commerce    commission    im- 


166 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


posed  a  six  per  cent  surcharge  tax  on  freight, 
which  is  being  applied  the  entire  distance 
from  the  American  port  of  origin  to  the 
Canadian  destination,  whereas  a  surcharge 
should  only  apply  as  far  as  a  Canadian  point 
of  entr>? 

Mr.  Roy:  Good  question. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  It  is  an  excellent  question. 
Mr.  Speaker,  no,  I  was  not  aware  that  this 
was  so  and  I  would  appreciate  if  the 
hon.  member  can  make  the  information  avail- 
able to  me.  I  will  certainly  look  into  that 
situation. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  Minister  of  Natural  Re- 
sources has  the  answer  to  a  question  asked 
previously. 


COMMUNICATIONS-6  INC. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  hon. 
member  for  Downsview  asked  me  a  question 
last  week.  He  wanted  me  to  explain:  "the 
basis  on  which  payments  in  the  amount  of 
$59,578  were  made  to  a  firm  of  consultants 
and  writers  on  public  relations  to  manage 
the  information  and  public  relations  pro- 
gramme for  the  historical  parks  in  that 
year."  He  also  wanted  to  know  who  they 
were,  who  found  them  and  on  whose  au- 
thority   this    expenditure    was    made. 

He  asked  further,  by  way  of  supplementary: 
"Could  the  minister  shed  a  little  light  on 
who  Communications-6  Inc.  really  is?" 

My  reply  is  that  in  the  formation  of  the 
new  government  ministries  on  April  1,  1972, 
the  direction  of  the  Huronia  historical  parks 
of  the  former  Department  of  Tourism  and 
Information  was  assigned  to  the  new  Ministry 
of  Natural  Resources.  Prior  to  this  transfer, 
the  Department  of  Tourism  and  Information 
had  established  in  1968  a  committee  of 
senior  officials,  including  the  deputy  minister 
of  that  department,  to  select  a  firm  to  develop 
a  public  relations  and  publications  pro- 
gramme for  Huronia  historical  parks.  This 
committee  requested  several  public  relations 
firms  to  submit  formal  presentations,  and 
following  an  analysis  of  these  presentations 
the  firm  of  Communications-6  Inc.  was 
selected. 

On  the  basis  of  satisfactory  past  per- 
formance, the  details  of  the  annual  public 
relations  programme  were  established  each 
year  by  the  director  of  the  historical  sites 
branch    and    transmitted    to   the    consultants. 

A  similar  arrangement  was  negotiated  and 
confirmed  in  May,   1973,  for  the   1973-1974 


fiscal  year,  with  the  same  firm  based  on  their 
performance  in  1972.  On  the  basis  of  this 
arrangement  my  ministry  approved  the 
accounts  for  payment.  Subsequently,  in  ac- 
cordance with  normal  ministry  policy,  the 
director  of  our  historical  sites  branch,  whose 
duties  include  the  management  of  the 
Huronia  historical  parks,  was  informed  that 
in  future  proposals  must  be  invited  from 
several  public  relations  firms  and  Manage- 
ment Board  approval  obtained  for  the  award 
of  that  contract. 

In  this  connection  I  might  add,  and  also 
inform  the  members,  that  some  two  weeks 
ago  we  invited  proposals  from  16  firms  for 
the  forthcoming  season. 

The  firm  of  Communications-6  Inc.  has 
its  head  office  in  Montreal  with  a  major 
office  in  Toronto  and  affiliations  in  Ottawa, 
New  York,  London,  Paris  and  Brussels.  The 
president  is  Mr.  C.  R.  Ha  worth  and  we  were 
advised  by  Mr.  Ha  worth  that  the  firm  was 
incorporated    in    December,    1963. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  Minister  of  Col- 
leges and  Universities  has  the  answer  to 
a  previous  question. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Has  he  been  here  before? 


REPORT  ON  CONESTAGA  COLLEGE 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
checked  my  files  and  I  have  the  answer  to 
a  question  which  the  hon.  member  asked  a 
moment  ago. 

I  understand  that  in  November  the  board 
of  governors  approached  my  predecessor  to 
ask  him  to  institute  a  study  of  all  aspects  of 
the  operation  of  the  college.  My  predecessor 
appointed  Dr.  Arthur  Porter  of  the  University 
of  Toronto.  He  submitted  his  report  on  Feb. 
10  and  the  college  board  is  dealing  vdth  it. 

Mr.  Good:  A  supplementary  then,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Since  the  minister  authorized  the 
investigation  into  the  administration  of  the 
college,  is  the  ministry  not  inserting  itself  into 
the  matter  any  further  in  view  of  the  dif- 
ference of  opinion,  in  the  published  report, 
between  the  faculty  and  the  administrative 
stafi^  at  the  college? 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  under- 
standing is  that  the  minister  simply  appointed 
a  person  to  look  into  the  situation  at  the 
request  of  the  college  board  and  the  college 
board,  as  part  of  its  responsibility,  has  taken 
the  report  and  is  going  to  deal  with  it. 


MARCH  12,  1974 


167 


Mr.  Speaker:  I  believe  the  hon.  Minister 
of  Housing  has  the  answer  to  another  ques- 
tion. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
the  answer  to  a  question  asked  by  the  mem- 
ber for  Wentvvorth  yesterday.  However,  the 
hon.  member  has  kindly  informed  me  that  he 
has  additional  information  which  I  suggested 
he  supply,  so  perhaps  I  could  defer  the 
answer  to  his  question  until  I've  received  that 
infonnation. 

Mr.  Royi  Good'  idea;  sit  down. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  believe  it  iS'  the  New  Demo- 
cratic Party's  turn.  The  hon.  member  for 
S  and'wich-Riverside. 


PENSIONS  FOR  PERMANENTLY 
DISABLED  WORKMEN 

.   Mr.  F.  A.  Burr  (Sandwich-Riverside):   Mr. 
Speaker,  1.  have  a  question  of  the  Premier- 
Mr.    Martel:    If   the  member   can   get  his 
attention. 

Mr.  Burr:  —regarding  pensions  for  per- 
manently disabled  workmen.  Is  there  any 
other  pension,  federal  or  provincial,  that  has 
not  been  escalated,  within  let  us  say  the  last 
10  years? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  have 
to  get  that  information  for  the  hon.  member. 
I  don't  know,  but  I  shall  endeavour  to  find 
out. 

Mr.  Burr:  Supplementary  question,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Is  there  anything  about  injured 
workmen  that  makes  them  impervious  to  the 
effects  of  inflation,  and  did  the  remarks'  in 
the  Throne  Speech  indicate  that  some  hel'p 
was  on  its  way  to  these  people? 

Hon.:  Mr.\  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  to  answer 
the  first  part  of  the  question,  there  is  nothing 
that  I  know  of  that  makes  injured'  workmen 
or  any  dther  group  in  this  society  impervious 
to  the  effects  of  inflation. 

As  far  .  as ,  the  second  part  of  the  question 
is  concerned,  quite  obviously  matters  of  gov- 
ernment policy  will  be  announced  here  in  the 
House  at  the  appropriate  time. 

Mr.  Martel:  Oh,  the  Premier  just  wags  his 
finger  at  Ottawa  all  the  time  and  says  what 
they  are  not  doing. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  We  wouldn't  do  that. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Peel 
South. 


VETERANS'  LAND  ACT 

Mr.  R.  D.  Kennedy  (Peel  South):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Housing. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  A  member 
of  cabinet. 

Mr.  Deans:  Why  doesn't  the  member  ask 
him  when  he  is  in^  cabinet  meetings? 

Mr.  Roy:  Is  the  member  dissatisfied  with 
him  too? 

Mr.  Kennedy:  In  view  of  the  housing  needs 
here  and  the  impending  closedowoi  of  the 
Veterans'  Land  Act  on  March  31,  I  was 
wondering  if  the  minister  would  communicate 
with  the  federal  Minister  of  Veterans'  Affairs 
to  determine  if  this  is  under  reconsideration 
and  if  indeed  a  continuation  is  warranted? 

Mr.  Lewis:  It  depends  on  the  federal 
Tories. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Very  good  question. 

Mr.  Singer:  Twenty  million  dollars  the 
government  didn't  use  would  have  financed 
a  lot  of  houses. 

Hon.    Mr.    Handleman:    Mr.    Speaker,    the 
provisions  of  the  Veterans'  Land  Act  have  in 
fact- 
Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  That  Act 
is  as  old  as  this  government. 

Hon.  J.  W.  Snow  (Minister  of  Government 
Services):   Not  quite. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  It's  been  a  very  successful 
Act. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  It  has  been  a  very 
successful  Act. 

Interjections  by  hon,  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Ordter. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  Mr.  Speaker,  there 
has  been  a  very  successful  programme  imder 
the  Veterans'  Land  Act. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Why  doesn't  the  minister 
take  this  question  as  notice?  Take  it  as  notice. 

Mr.  Lewis:  He  can't  reply  to  this  kind  of 
question  wdthout  advance  information.  He'd 
best  take  it  as  notice. 

Hon.  Mr.  Handleman:  I  don't  need  it.  I 
will  be  meeting  with  the  hon.  Mr.  Basford 
in  a  couple  of  weeks.  I  understand  it  is  due 
to  expire  within  that  period;  however,  I  will 


168 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


be  discussing  it  with  him.  I  think  it  is  a  sound 
suggestion,  if  that  interest  rate  can  be  main- 
tained imder  present-day  conditions. 

Mr.  Singer:  He  isn't  the  Minister  of 
Veterans*  Affairs. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  Is  the  member  satisfied  with 
that  answer? 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  were  about  five  mem- 
bers of  the  Liberal  Party,  and  I  am  certain  I 
don't  know  who  was  first. 

Mr.  Bullbrook:  The  fellow  he  is  meeting 
has  nothing  to  do  with  veterans*  aflPairs.  Is 
the  member  satisfied  with  that? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  There  are  at 
least  four  members  before  the  hon.  member 
for  York  Centre  (Mr.  Deacon).  The  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Windsor- Walkerville,  I  think. 


SALES  TAX  ON  SPORTS  EQUIPMENT 

Mr.  B.  Newman  (Windsor- Walkerville): 
Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Revenue,  if  I  can  get  his 
attention.  As  he  is  walking  back  to  his  seat, 
I  would  like  to  go  on  with  the  question— 

Hon.  A.  K.  Meen  (Minister  of  Revenue): 
Me? 

Mr.  Roy:  Yes. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  He  is  the  minister. 

Mr.  Roy:  Yes,  he  is  the  fellow. 

Mr.  Good:  He's  not  quite  sure  yet. 

Mr.  Martel:  It  was  so  long  in  coming. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  In  the  interest  of  pro- 
moting fitness  and  encouraging  greater  par- 
ticipation in  amateur  sport,  is  the  minister 
considering  eliminating  the  sales  tax  on 
sports  equipment  that  is  purchased  by  organ- 
ized amateur  sports  organizations,  especially 
those  recognized  by  the  Ministry  of  Com- 
munity and  Social  Services? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  Ministry 
of  Revenue  administers  the  laws  as  estab- 
lished by  this  Legislature,  and  particularly 
as  recommended  by  the  Treasurer  and  Min- 
ister of  Economics  and  Intergovernmental 
Affairs.  I  don't  think  it  would  be  fair  to  say 
that  I  was  considering  that. 

I  suppose  it  is  fair  to  say  that  since  the 
Retail  Sales  Tax  Act  does  come  under  my 
ministry  we  have  occasion  to  review  matters 
such  as  this,  but  the  final  decision  is  not  one 
that  is  in  my  hands  alone. 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  That's  right. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Wind- 
sor West. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  A  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.    Speaker:    A   supplementary?  Yes. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  May  I  ask  the  minister 
if  he  is  considering  issuing  exemption  certifi- 
cates to  amateur  sports  organizations  in  the 
same  way  that  exemption  certificates  are 
issued  to  school  boards  so  they  may  purchase 
athletic  equipment  and  not  pay  the  sales 
tax? 

Hon.  Mr.  Meen:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is  a 
matter  I  have  been  looking  at,  but  it  off^ers 
a  considerable  number  of  problems  and  I  am 
not  at  this  time  prepared  to  say  I  would 
issue  such  a  certificate. 

Mr.  Singer:  It  is  under  review,  as  the 
front  bench  says.  Everything  is  under  review. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Wind- 
sor West. 


RECONSTRUCTION  OF  HIGHWAY  401 
NEAR  WINDSOR 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bounsall  (Windsor  West):  A  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Transportation  and 
Communications. 

Mr.  Martel:  That  is  the  minister. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Mr.  Speaker,  where  is  the 
schedule  for  reconstruction  of  the  right-hand 
lane  of  Highway  401  proceeding  westward 
to  Windsor,  from  about  10  to  15  miles  out, 
which  for  the  last  five  to  seven  years  has 
been  reminiscent  of  the  old  corduroy  roads 
in  northern  Ontario?  It  was  supposed  to  be 
started  and  completed  this  spring  and  sum- 
mer- 
Mr.  Foulds:  There  are  new  corduroy  roads 
in  northern  Ontario. 

Mr.  Martel:  He  forgot  all  about  those 
roads.  Some  of  his  best  speeches  in  the 
House  have  been  about  roads. 

Mr.  Stokes:  What  about  the  new  corduro\- 
roads  in  northern  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
like  very  much  to  answer  the  hon.  member's 
question  if  I  could  have  heard  him  behind 
the  noise  made  by  his  colleagues.  I  think  he 
referred  to  Highway  401,  but  if  they  would 


MARCH  12,  1974 


169 


quieten   down  for  him  I  would  be  pleased 
to  hear  it  again. 

Mr.  Martel:  No  one  said  a  word. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  It  is  about  a  portion  of  10 
to  15  miles  out  of  Windsor,  heading  west, 
the  right  hand  lane,  which  has  been  remi- 
niscent of  the  northern  corduroy  roads  for 
the  last  five  to  seven  years. 

Mr.  Ruston:  All  the  rates  are  up. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  When  will  the  construction 
start,  and  will  it  be  commenced  and  finished 
this  summer? 

Mr.  Ruston:  The  contract's  been  let. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  I  can't  give  the  member 
a  direct  answer  at  this  time.  I  will  be  pleased 
to  provide  the  information  as  to  when  it  can 
be  done. 

Mr.  Roy:  Try  an  indirect  answer. 

Hon.  Mr.  Rhodes:  I  appreciate  that  the 
member  recognizes  that  there  is  a  need  for 
highways  in  the  north,  though. 

Mr.  Ruston:  The  roads  will  be  completed 
by  September. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  minister  should  have  told 
the  northwestern  Ontario  Chamber  of  Com- 
merce that. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  thought  the  hon.  member 
for  St.  George  had  a  question? 


.ASSESSMENT  NOTICES 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  question 
is  to  the  Minister  of  Revenue. 

Would  he  clarify  for  this  House  the  policy 
which  appears  to  have  been  arrived  at  where- 
by no  assessment  notices  are  to  be  extended 
this  year  to  the  people  of  Ontario,  save  and 
except  for  new  construction  and  special  cir- 
cumstances, thus  denying  a  large  proportion 
of  people  the  right  of  appeal? 

Hon.  Mr.  Mean:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  no 
information  on  that  at  the  moment.  I  will 
get  it  for  the  hon.  member. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  A  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  I  wonder  if  the  minister  would  also 
look  into  the  situation  in  the  matter  of  a 
condominium  project  in  the  riding  of  St. 
George,  namely  40  Homewood,  where  there 
has  been  an  appeal  successfully  made  by 
those  who  did  take  title  in  the  fall  of  1972, 
but   no   further   appeal   has   been   heard,   al- 


though it  has  been  launched  by  the  com- 
missioner as  of  June,  1973;  meanwhile  those 
who  were  not  included  in  that  appeal  are 
faced  with  an  old  assessment  and  no  right 
to  appeal  at  this  time? 

Hon.    Mr.    Meen:    I    will    look    into    that 
matter,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  High 
Park. 


HICKLING-JOHNSTON  REPORT  ON 
MINISTRY  OF  HEALTH 

Mr.  M.  Shulman  (High  Park):  A  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Health,  Mr,  Speaker:  Is 
the  minister  willing  to  make  public  the 
report  prepared  for  and  about  his  department 
by  the  firm  of  Hickling-Johnston? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  must  say  that  question 
from  the  member  came  as  something  of  a 
surprise. 

Mr.  Ruston:  One  a  day! 

Mr.  Germa:  Just  answer. 

Mr.  Ruston:  An  apple  a  day  keeps  the 
doctor  away;  the  minister  should  try  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  If  it  would  cut  my  OHIP 
premiums,  I  would  do  that.  I  really  would 
have  to  learn  more  about  that  report  because 
quite  honestly  at  this  point  I  don't  know 
much  about  the  contents  of  it. 

Mr.  Shulman:  A  supplementary,  if  I  may, 
Mr.  Speaker:  Will  the  minister  familiarize 
himsfelf  with  What  is  occurring  in  the  ministry 
and  report  back  to  us  on  whether  he  is 
willing  to  make  that  report  public  or  table  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  may  have  misinterpreted 
the  member's  question.  Does  he  mean  would 
I  familiarize  myself  with  what  is  happening 
in  the  ministry  or  with  what  the  report  says 
is  happening  within  the  ministry? 

Mr.  Stokes:  Why  not  both? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  would  be  pleased  to 
do  so.  I  am  doing  my  best  to  do  the  former 
and  I  will  be  pleased  Ic  do  the  latter. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  the  hon.  member  for 
Kitchener  is  next. 


EXPENDITURE  BY  CHAIRMAN 
OF  ONTARIO  COUNCIL  OF  REGENTS 

Mr.    Breithaupt:    Mr.    Speaker,    I    have    a 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Colleges  and  Uni- 


170 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


versities.  Has  the  minister  ordered  a  review 
of  the  apparent  expenditure  by  the  chairman 
of  the  Ontario  Council  of  Regents  for  the 
colleges  of  applied  arts  and  technology,  and 
his  expenditures  for  a  hospitality  suite  during 
the  meetings  of  the  regents  as  referred  to  in 
the  auditor's  report?  Will  the  minister  pro- 
vide us  with  the  details  of  the  expenses  of 
that  operation  and  the  persons  who  received 
the  hospitality? 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  made 
inquiries  about  this.  I  am  informed  that  the 
chairman  of  the  Council  of  Regents  lives  in 
Markham.  When  the  council  has  its  bi- 
monthly meetings  they  last  for  about  two 
days.  He  has  premises  in  the  hotel  where 
the  meeting  takes  place,  not  primarily  for  his 
own  convenience  but  for  meetings  with  mem- 
bers of  the  board— individual  meetings  and 
that  sort  of  thing  rather  than  the  general 
meeting.  I  am  informed  that,  in  fact,  it  is 
probably  less  costly  to  have  him  staying  in  the 
hotel  than  it  is  to  have  him  going  back  and 
forth  to  Markham  by  taxi.  I  can  get  the 
detailed  rundown  if  the  hon.  member  would 
like  it. 

Mr.  Mattel :  Let  him  try  using  a  car  like 
the  rest  of  us. 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  I  haven't  read  the  detailed 
part  in  the  auditor's  report  myself  but  I 
assume  that  the  details  are  there.  If  they 
aren't,  I'll  get  further  information  for  him. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Lake- 
shore. 


AGE  OF  CONSENT  FOR  ABORTIONS 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Thank  ^X)u  very  much,  Mr. 
Speaker.  I  have  a  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Health. 

Interjec^ons  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  What  are  the  minister's 
reasons,  metaphysical,  biological  or  otherwise, 
for  reducing  the  age  at  Which  abortions  may 
be  obtained  without  parental  consent  to 
16? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  member 
has  misinterpreted  the  regulation  in  the  same 
way  as  the  press  has. 

Mr.  Roy:  Straighten  us  out. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  The  Province  of  Ontario 
by  itself  does  not  set  the  conditions  under 
which  an  abortion  may  be  performed.  This 
is    done   by   federal   statute.    The   change   in 


regulations  which  was  made  by  the  Pro\  ince 
of  Ontario,  and  given  some  press  publicity 
last  week,  dealt  with  the  age  at  which  consent 
could  be  given  for  any  surgical  operation 
performed  within  a  hospital,  and  of  course 
abortion  is  a  surgical  operation. 

It  was  not  aimed  at  abortions  per  se.  It 
was  to  cover  a  group  of  people  who,  for  one 
reason  or  other,  either  had  not  official  guard- 
ians or  parents  who  could  sign  for  them  or 
who,  unfortunately  in  this  mobile  modern 
society,  did  not  relate  to  their  parents  and  so 
were  not  in  contact  with  them.  A  number  of 
these  people  were  coming  into  hospitals  in 
need  of  all  kinds  of  surgical  procedures  and 
legally  there  was  no  way  of  prpxiding  them. 
Some  of  them  were  falsifying  names  and 
ages  and  leaving  the  hospitals  in  \er\-  delicate 
legal  conditions  if  they  served  thiem. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Supplementary:  Would  the 
hon.  minister  consider  excluding  this  par- 
ticular category  of  surgical  operation  from 
the  regulations? 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  I  certainly  \\i\\  listen  to 
any  suggestions  that  are  given  at  this  point 
in  time,  I  wouldn't  want  to  say  that  we 
could  necessarily  start  making  exclusions 
of  one  type  or  another,  because  I  tliink— 

Mr.  Reid:  Abortion  is  not  one  type  or 
another. 

Hon.  Mr.  Miller:  —exclusions  can  be  very 
dangerous. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for 
Ottawa  East. 

Mr.  Roy:  I  defer  to  my  friend,  Mr.  Speaker, 
thank  you. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Essex 
South. 


POINT  PELEE  NATIONAL  PARK 

Mr.  D.  A.  Paterson  (Essex  South):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  question  of  the  Minister 
of  Natural  Resources.  Has  he  or  his  policy 
group  made  a  decision  as  yet  as  to  whether 
the  1974  licences  for  sand-sucking  operations 
off  Pt.  Pelee  National  Park  are  going  to  be 
issued  or  not? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
pleased  to  report  to  the  hon.  member  that 
that    decision    has    been    reached. 

Mr.  Paterson:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
The  minister  says  the  decision  has  been 
reached? 


MARCH  12,  1974 


171 


Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  It  has  been  reached. 

Mr.  Paterson:  And  what  is  that  decision? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  That  decision?  The  de- 
cision was  that  the  two  licences  would  not 
be  reissued. 


USE  OF  RESOURCES  IN 
ARMSTRONG  AREA 

Mr.  Stokes:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Natural  Resources.  In  view  of 
the  social  and  economic  problems  experienced 
by  the  people  of  Armstrong,  and  in  light  of 
the  fact  there  are  several  hundred  thousand 
cords  of  good  merchantable  timber  in  the 
area,  will  the  minister  undertake  to  insist 
that  the  prime  licence-holder  utilize  that 
timber  for  a  saw-log  operation  for  the  benefit 
of  the  people  in  the  community  of  Arm- 
strong, or  turn  those  timber  stands  over  to 
somebody  else  who  is  prepared  to  use  them 
to  look  after  the  social  and  economic  needs 
of  that  town? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  I  can  relate  to  the  hon. 
member  for  Thunder  Bay  that  this  govern- 
ment is  very  concerned  with  the  future  and 
the  people  of  the  Armstrong  area  because  of 
certain  actions  of  the  federal  government. 

With  regard  to  the  resources  in  that  par- 
ticular area,  I  would  point  out  to  him 
that  they  have  been  allocated  to  the  St. 
Lawrence  Corp.  for  processing  in  the  Red 
Rock  area.  I  have  been  in  verbal  discussion 
with  the  company.  They  are  to  present  to 
me  a  proposal  which  will  fully  utilize  all 
those  resources.  But  they  did  point  out  to 
me  in  their  discussion  that  if  there  were 
going  to  be  a  continuous  operation  at  Red 
Rock  and  if  the  viability  of  that  particular 
mill  were  to  be  maintained,  it  may  well  be 
that  the  resources  in  the  Armstrong  area 
would  have  to  be  directed  to  the  Red  Rock 
mill.  That  was  only  in  a  verbal  discussion 
and  we  are  waiting  for  something  from 
them  in  a  more  formal  way  at  the  present 
time. 

Of  course,  we  have  in  our  hand  a  pro- 
posal from  a  gentleman  by  the  name  of 
Buchanan,  I  believe,  who  is  most  interested 
in  establishing  an  operation  in  the  Arm- 
strong area;  and  we  are  certainly  considering 
that  aspect  too. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Supplementary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  have  already  exceeded 
the  question  period  by  about  three  minutes. 

Petitions. 

Presenting  reports. 


Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
pleased  to  present  to  the  members  of  the 
Legislature  a  copy  of  a  report  of  the  ad- 
visory committee  on  the  revision  of  the 
Mining  Act. 

The  members  will  recall  that  this  com- 
mittee was  established  approximately  two 
years  ago  under  the  chairmanship  of  the 
present  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Com- 
munications, my  former  parliamentary  assist- 
ant, the  hon.  member  for  Sault  Ste.  Marie 
(Mr.  Rhodes). 

In  the  course  of  carrying  out  its  responsi- 
bilities, the  committee  examined  comparable 
legislation  and  situations  in  several  other 
jurisdictions.  Their  aim  was  to  ensure  that 
Ontario  continued  to  be  the  leader  in  respect 
to  mining  legislation. 

I  am  indeed  grateful  to  the  members  of  the 
committee  for  the  very  thorough  study  that 
they  have  carried  out.  I  have  had  a  brief 
opportunity  to  peruse  the  report  and  more 
particularly  the  recommendations.  In  my  own 
opinion,  there  is  a  great  deal  of  merit  in 
many  of  the  recommendations.  I  feel  sure 
there  will  be  revisions  to  our  legislation 
which  will  result  from  the  discussions  that 
will  flow  from  the  study  of  this  report. 

At  the  same  time,  I  want  to  make  clear 
that  the  government  has  rejected  recommen- 
dation No.  51  which  proposes  mining  in 
provincial  parks. 

Consistent  with  tabling  this  report  in  the 
Legislature,  it  is  my  intention  to  make  copies 
available  to  the  executive  of  such  organiza- 
tions as  the  prospectors  and  developers,  the 
Ontario  Mining  Association  and  the  Canadian 
Institute  of  Mining  and  Metallurgy.  The 
views  of  these  organizations,  along  with  the 
recommendations  of  individuals,  other  organi- 
zations, as  well  as  the  views  and  comments 
of  the  individual  members  of  this  House,  will 
be  of  great  benefit  to  me  and  my  staff. 

It  is  proposed  that  all  such  views  and 
recommendations  be  submitted  prior  to  the 
end  of  June.  This  will  allow  the  summer  and 
the  early  fall  to  distill  the  recommendations 
in  the  report  and  the  reactions  to  the  recom- 
mendations through  the  course  of  the  sum- 
mer, in  the  interest  of  developing  the  appro- 
priate revisions  to  the  legislation  for  the  fall 
sitting  of  this  Legislature. 

Once  more,  I  would  like  to  express  my 
appreciation  to  my  colleague  who  chaired  the 
committee— he  did  an  excellent  job— and  to 
the  individual  members  of  the  committee, 
and  to  all  those  who  have  or  will  have  or 
will  be  assisting  us  in  any  way  in  the  devel- 
opment of  this  legislation. 


172 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Carruthers  from  the  select  committee 
appointed  to  prepare  the  lists  of  members 
to  compose  the  standing  committees  of  the 
House,  presented  the  committee's  report 
which  was  read  as  follows: 

Your  Committee  recommends  that  the  lists 
of  standing  committees  ordered  by  the  House 
be  composed  of  the  following  members: 

1.  Procedural  ArFAms:  Messrs.  Bales, 
Bounsall,  Burr,  Carton,  I>ymond,  Edighoffer, 
Ewen,  Henderson,  Hodgson  (Victoria-Hali- 
burton),  Johnston,  McNie,  Morrow,  Smith 
(Hamilton  Mountain),  Smith  (Nipissing), 
Spence,  Timbrell,  Turner— 17. 

2.  Administration  of  Justice:  Messrs. 
Bullbrook,  Carruthers,  Davison,  Downer, 
Drea,  Givens,  Havrot,  Lane,  Lawlor,  Law- 
rence, MacBeth,  Nixon  (Dovercourt),  Ren- 
wick,  Ruston,  Singer,  Taylor,  Walker, 
Wardle,  Yaremko— 19. 

3.  Social  Development:  Messrs.  Apps, 
Belanger,  Campbell  (Mrs.),  Deacon,  Dukszta, 
Eaton,  Foulds,  Hamilton,  Irvine,  Jessiman, 
Leluk,  Martel,  Momingstar,  Newman  (Wind- 
sor-Walkerville),  Parrott,  Reilly,  Roy,  Scriv- 
ener (Mrs.),  Villeneuve— 19. 

4.  Resources  Development:  Messrs.  Allan, 
Beckett,  Evans,  Gaunt,  Gilbertson,  Good, 
Laughren,  MacDonald,  Maeck,  Mcllveen, 
McNeil,  Nuttall,  Paterson,  Rollins,  Root, 
Sargent,  Stokes,  Wiseman,  Yakabuski— 19. 

5.  Miscellaneous  Estimates:  Messrs. 
Cassidy,  Drea,  Evans,  Gisbom,  Haggerty, 
Hamilton,  Jessiman,  Leluk,  Nixon  (Dover- 
court),  Nuttall,  Parrott,  Riddell,  Root,  Scriv- 
ener (Mrs.),  Stokes,  Villeneuve,  Wardle,  Wor- 
ton-18. 

6.  Public  Accounts:  Messrs.  AUan,  Dy- 
mond,  Ferrier,  Germa,  Lane,  MacBeth,  Mc- 
llveen, Reid,  Ruston,  Taylor,  Wiseman, 
Yakabuski-12. 

7.  Regulations:  Messrs.  Belanger,  Braith- 
waite.  Deans,  Havrot,  Johnston,  Maeck, 
Momingstar,  Morrow,  Paterson,  Reilly,  Tur- 
ner, Young— 12. 

The  quorum  of  committees  1  to  5  and  of 
the  private  bills  committee  to  be  seven  in 
each  case.  The  quorum  of  committees  6  and 
7  to  be  five  in  each  case. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
like  to  request  of  the  government  that  they 
consider  permitting  substitution  of  individu- 
als to  all  committees  prior  to  the  sitting  of 
the  committee.  The  estimates  committee  now 
makes  provision  so  that  before  the  estimates 
are  being  discussed- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please.  I  must  point 
out  to  the  hon.  member  that  the  matter  of 


substitutions  was  dealt  with  previously.  The 
motion  today  does  not  deal  with  substitutions 
on  these  particular  committees.  That  motion 
has  been  before  the  House  previously. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  But  the  opposition  was  ig- 
nored. 

Mr.  Deans:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  may,  sir, 
the  matter  of  substitutions  was  a  matter  of 
discussion  within  the  committee  this  morning, 
and  a  decision  was  reached  in  the  committee 
that  the  chairman  would  make  representation 
to  the  House  leader  of  the  government  party 
to  allow  limited  substitution  on  all  commit- 
tees. I  think  that's  probably  what  the  hon. 
member  for  Windsor-Walkerville  was  talk- 
ing about.  If  not  contained  in  the  report  of 
the  committee,  it  was  certainly  a  decision 
of  the  committee  that  the  chairman  would 
speak  with  the  House  leader  of  the  govern- 
ment and  ask  on  behalf  of  the  committee  that 
some  limited  substitution  be  pennitted. 

Hon.  Mr.  Winkler:  Mr.  Speaker,  following 
the  discussion  in  the  House  the  other  day,  I 
think  I  intimated  to  the  hon.  members  that  I 
certainly  had  an  open  mind  on  the  matter. 
When  the  chairman  approaches  me  we  will 
discuss  the  matter  and  I  will  report  back  to 
the  House. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Is  it  just  a  matter  for  dis- 
cussion? 

Report  adopted. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Motions. 

Introduction  of  bills. 


YORK  COUNTY  BOARD  OF  EDUCATION 
TEACHERS'  DISPUTE  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moves  first  reading  of  bill 
intituled.  An  Act  respecting  a  Certain  Dispute 
between  the  York  County  Board  of  Educa- 
tion and  Certain  of  its  Teachers. 

Some  hon.  members:  No! 

Some  hon.  members:  Explain! 

Mr.  Lewis:  No.  Surely  we  can  have  an  ex- 
planation. 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  will  defer  the— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
order.  The  minister  was  not  in  for  the  order 
of  business  entitled  government  ministerial 
statements.  Certainly  it  would  be  quite  in 
order  to  revert,  surely,  if  the  minister  would 
have  a  statement  to  make  before  we  are 
asked  to  vote  on  the  bill. 


MARCH  12,  1974 


173 


Mr.  Speaker:  If  the  House  is  agreeable 
I  see  no  reason  we  shouM  not  revert  and  that 
the  minister  should  make  a  statement  at  this 
point. 

Hon.  T.  L.  Wells  (Minister  of  Education): 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  wish  to  introduce  legislation 
today  to  bring  to  an  end  the  long  dispute  and 
disruption  of  educational  programmes  in  the 
secondary  schools  of  the  York  county  Board 
of  Education. 

Negotiations  relating  to  the  1973-1974  con- 
tract began  with  York  county  board  and  its 
secondary  school  teachers  in  April,  1973, 
which  is  more  than  10  months  ago.  Free  col- 
lective bargaining  has  proceeded  through  this 
extended  period,  assisted  in  the  latter  stages 
by  the  services  of  a  mediator  from  the  Minis- 
try of  Labour.  The  past  5%  weeks  have  been 
marked  by  a  withdrawal  of  services  by  a 
majority  of  York  county  secondary  school 
teachers.  Unfortunately,  because  of  this  situ- 
ation, the  secondary  school  students  of  York 
county  have  been  severely  disadvantaged  due 
to  their  lack  of  access  to  a  full  educational 
programme. 

Mr.  Speaker,  members  will  recall  that  about 
667  York  county  secondary  school  teachers 
took  part  in  a  mass  resignation  last  Novem- 
ber. These  resignations  were  to  have  taken 
effect  on  Dec.  31  but  as  part  of  an  arrange- 
ment that  affected  teachers  in  several  areas 
of  the  province,  it  was  agreed  to  defer  them 
until  Jan.  31,  1974,  in  order  to  allow  fur- 
ther bargaining  to  continue. 

Bargaining,  supported  by  mediation,  did  in- 
deed continue,  but  as  the  Jan.  31  deadline  ap- 
proached it  became  apparent  that  a  settlement 
was  not  going  to  be  achieved  at  that  time. 
Mr.  Terry  Mancini,  the  Ministry  of  Labour 
mediator  who  had  been  working  with  the 
York  county  board  and  its  teachers  since 
early  January,  wrote  a  report  and  recom- 
mendation on  the  situation  on  Jan.  30.  In  it 
he  said,  and  I  quote: 

The  writer  feels  that  a  settlement  could 
have  been  achieved  if  the  matter  of  pupil - 
teacher  ratio  issue  could  be  resolved.  How- 
ever, both  parties  remain  adamant  and  re- 
fuse to  settle  this  issue.  It  is  my  opinion 
that  a  closing  of  the  schools  by  either  party 
is  not  in  the  best  interests  of  all  concerned 
and  strongly  recommend  that  the  parties 
submit  this  dispute  to  voluntary  arbitra- 
tion. 

As  Minister  of  Education  I  put  the  proposal 
for  voluntary  arbitration  to  both  parties  at 
that  time  and  strongly  recommended  that  this 
course   be   followed   in   order   to   keep   York 


county  secondary  schools  open  and  operating 
normally.  Unfortunately,  the  parties  could  not 
agree  on  the  terms  of  arbitration  and  the  re- 
sult was  that  the  667  teachers  withdrew  their 
services. 

Mr.  Speaker,  with  settlements  having  been 
achieved  in  all  other  parts  of  the  province 
where  mass  resignations  had  been  submitted, 
it  seemed  clear  to  me  that  the  best  solution 
to  the  York  county  situation  was  to  encourage 
both  parties  to  negotiate  their  way  out  of  the 
dispute  and  to  reach  an  agreement  between 
themselves  with  the  participation  of  Mr. 
Mancini,  who  continued  to  provide  skilled  as- 
sistance in  keeping  negotiations  moving  for- 
ward. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  personally  spent  many  hours 
dealing  with  both  parties  in  a  concerted  effort 
to  achieve  a  negotiated  setdement.  However, 
five  more  weeks  passed  without  significant 
progress,  with  the  schools  in  the  meantime 
able  to  provide  only  minimal  progress  at  best 
to  their  students. 

Last  Friday,  negotiations  between  the 
board  and  the  teachers  cleariy  reached  a  state 
of  impasse,  with  neither  party  willing  to 
adjust  its  position  in  a  way  that  would  lead 
to  further  meaningful  discussions.  Therefore, 
Mr.  Speaker,  late  Friday  evening  I  again 
presented  privately  to  the  negotiating  teams 
of  both  the  teachers  and  the  board  a  proposal 
that  they  proceed  voluntarily  to  refer  the 
items  remaining  in  dispute  to  a  board  of 
arbitration. 

Later  that  evening  the  chief  negotiator  of 
the  board,  Mr.  Honsberger,  indicated  the 
board's  willingness  to  accept  my  proposal  and 
he  signed  a  document  to  affirm  this.  The 
teachers'  negotiating  team  advised  me  on 
Saturday  that  it  was  unwilling  to  accept  the 
proposal  for  voluntary  arbitration. 

At  this  11th  hour,  Mr.  Speaker,  with  volun- 
tary arbitration  obviously  the  most  favourable 
option  open  to  both  parties,  I  called  a  further 
meeting  of  teacher  and  board  representatives 
on  Sunday  morning.  At  this  time  I  formally 
presented  my  proposal  for  voluntary'  arbitra- 
tion, the  proposal  which  I  tabled  in  this 
House  yesterday.  Once  again,  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  chief  negotiator  for  the  board  signed  to 
affirm  his  aceptance  and  the  teachers'  negoti- 
ating team  refused.  I  asked  the  teachers  to 
take  another  day  to  consider  the  proposal 
further,  but  last  night  they  remained  un- 
changed in  their  position. 

Mr.  Speaker,  in  all  good  conscience  this 
government  cannot  allow  this  situation  to 
continue,  primarily  because  of  the  fact  that 


174 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


students  are  caught  in  the  middle  of  a  situ- 
ation over  which  they  have  no  control  and  it 
is  they  who  are  suffering  the  consequences 
most  severely.  We  have  absolutely  no  alterna- 
tive but  to  bring  this  stalemate  to  a  con- 
clusion. 

This  we  are  doing  today  with  the  intro- 
duction of  legislation  designed  to  settle  all 
matters  remaining  in  dispute  between  the 
board  and  its  secondary  school  teachers.  In 
considering  this  legislation  and  the  solution 
it  proposes,  responsible  persons  would  do 
well  to  remember  very  clearly  the  effects  of 
these  past  5%  weeks  on  the  secondary  stu- 
dents of  York  county.  They  have  been,  de- 
prived of  about  10  per  cent  of  their  school 
year.  Some  York  county  students  may  miss 
out  on  scholarships  because  of  the  dispute, 
and  others  may  find  their  post-secondary 
education  plans  changed  also  because  of  it. 
Some  students  are  reported  to  have  dropped 
out  of  school. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  objective  of  the  legisla- 
tion is  simply  to  return  York  county  second- 
ary schools  to  normal  operation  again.  Being 
realistic,  I  imagine  that  it  will  be  variously 
interpreted  as  being  anti-teac'her  or  anti- 
board.  It  is  neither.  It  is  pro-student.  Students 
and  their  parents  have  the  right  to  an  educa- 
tion, and  they  have  been  deprived  of  that 
right  for  too  long. 

The  legislation  which  we  hope  will  correct 
the  situation  has  two  main  features.  It  caMs 
for  teachers  to  return  to  school  immediately 
and  for  the  board  of  education  to  resume 
their  employment.  It  requires  that  all  items 
remaining  in  dispute  be  referred  to  a  three- 
person  board  of  arbitration  for  settlement. 
Each  party  will  select  one  member  of  the 
board  of  arbitration,  and  these  two  persons 
will  jointly  select  a  third  person  to  act  as 
chairman.  If  they  carmot  agree,  I,  as  Minister 
of  Education,  will  appoint  an  independent 
and  objective  person  as  chairman. 

Procedures  laid  down  for  the  board  of 
arbitration  will  ensure  fairness  in  judging  the 
merits  of  the  arguments  put  forward  by  both 
the  teachers  and  the  board  of  education. 

Both  parties  will  be  called  upon  to  write 
up  their  ovm  hsts  of  items  they  consider  to 
be  in  dispute,  and  the  board  of  arbitration 
will  be  required  to  look  at  all  items  on  both 
lists  and  give  each  party  ample  opportunity 
to  state  its  case  on  each  item. 

These  aspects  of  the  terms  of  reference  of 
the  board  of  arbitration  deserve  special  men- 
tion. First,  the  board  must  consider  pupil- 
teacher  ratio  as  an  arbitrable  item.  Second, 
the   board  of   education's   latest   salary   offer 


must  be  considered  as  a  floor  by  the  board  of 
arbitration;  and  in  fact  it  is  implemented  by 
this  legislation,  effective  September,  1973. 

As  I  have  said,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  con- 
vinced that  this  legislation  is  on  bdance 
equally  fair  to  both  the  York  county  Board 
of  Education  and  its  secondary  school  teach- 
ers. We  are  proceeding  today  because  we 
feel  that  such  legislation  is  in  the  public 
interest,  and  particularly  the  interests  of  the 
students  of  York  county. 

Further,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  my  sincere  hope 
that  both  parties  in  York  county  wiU  make 
one  final  effort  to  reach  an  agreement  through 
further  negotiations.  I  stand  ready  to  wi^- 
draw  this  bill  at  a  moment's  notice  if  an 
agreement  were  reached  and  ratified  by  both 
parties,  and  communicated  to  me  while  we 
are  debating  this  bill  in  this  Legislature.  But 
I  would  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  cannot  in  good 
faith  wait  any  longer. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  will  you 
permit  a  question  of  clarification?  Is  the  min- 
ister in  his  statement  making  it  clear  to  the 
arbitrator  that  the  pupil-teadher  ratio  is  itself 
arbitrable,  and  not  whether  or  not  it  should 
be  an  arbitrable  item;  if  the  minister  gets  the 
significance  of  that? 

Mr.  Lewis:   Yes,  he  is  saying  that. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  In  other  words,  govern- 
ment poHcy  is  being  imposed  in  that  regard 
and  it  reverses  the  trustees'  position. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is  the 
intention  of  the  government  in  this  bill.  The 
section  says  pupil-teacher  ratio  is  arbitrable 
and  shall  be  deemed  to  be  included  as  a 
matter  in  dispute;  and  the  notice  is  referred 
to  in  section  1. 

Mr.  Lewis:  May  I  also  ask  a  point  of 
clarification?  Are  there  any  penalty  provisions 
in  the  bill,  as  the  minister  has  laid  it  out, 
if  teachers  do  not  return;  or  is  there  a  refer- 
ence to  the  acceptance  of  resignations  if  they 
do  not  return? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  The  section  says  where, 
on  the  application  of  the  board  or  a  teacher, 
a  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  is  satisfied 
that  the  board  or  any  teachers  failed  to  com- 
ply with  section  2,  he  may  make  an  order 
requiring,  as  the  case  may  be,  the  board  to 
employ  the  teacher  who  has  attempted  to 
comply  with  section  2  or  the  teacher  who 
has  failed  to  comply  with  section  2  to  resume 
his  employment  with  the  board,  in  accord- 
ance with  this  contract  of  employment  in 
effect  on  Jan.  30,  1974. 


MARCH  12,  1974 


175 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  With  your  permission, 
Mr.  Speaker,  will  the  minister  make  it  clear 
whether  or  not  his  ceilings  apply  to  the 
arbitrators  in  this  particular  piece  of  legis- 
lation? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is 
nothing  in  this  legislation  that  refers  to  ceil- 
ings. 

Mr.  Lewis:  Ceilings  are  not  the  problem 
anyway. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  It  is  exactly  as  the  sug- 
gestion made  for  voluntary  arbitration  that 
we  talked  about  here  last  December.  The 
arbitrator  will  consider  the  issues  in  dispute 
on  their  merits  and  bring  down  an  award. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Shall  the  motion  for  first 
reading  of  this  bill  carry? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Those  in  favour  of  first  read- 
ing   of    the    bill    will    please    say    "aye". 
Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay". 
In  my  opinion  the  "ayes"  have  it. 

Motion  agreed  to;  first  reading  of  the 
bill. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Any  further  bills? 

Orders  of  the  day. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  The  first  order,  re- 
suming the  adjourned  debate  on  the  amend- 
ment to  the  amendment  to  the  motion  for 
an  address  in  reply  to  the  speech  of  the 
Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor  at  the 
opening  of  this  session. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order  please,  the  hon.  mem- 
ber for  Beaches-Woodbine  has  the  floor. 


THRONE  SPEECH  DEBATE 

Mr.  T.  A.  Wardle  (Beaches-Woodbine): 
Mr.  Speaker,  my  first  remarks  in  this  debate 
on  the  Speech  from  the  Throne  are  a  tribute 
to  you  as  the  Speaker  of  this  Legislature. 
The  ofiice  of  the  Speaker  is  one  of  honour, 
dignity,  tradition  and  of  the  greatest  impor- 
tance in  the  conduct  of  our  parliamentary 
system  of  government.  You  have  carried  with 
distinction,  good  humour  and  fairness  this 
heavy  responsibility,  and  you  are  held  in 
high  regard,  I  am  sure,  by  all  members  of 
this  House. 

Mr.  Speaker,  there  are  a  number  of  im- 
portant matters   raised   in   the   Speech  from 


the  Throne  and  hopefully  each  will  be  dealt 
with  during  the  present  session.  However, 
before  speaking  on  some  of  these  matters  I 
should  like  to  make  a  few  comments  on 
previous  suggestions  I  have  made  in  the 
Throne  Speech  debate  during  the  last  session 
and  also  in  the  budget  debate  at  that  time. 

One  of  the  suggestions  that  I  made  in  the 
Throne  Speech  debate  a  year  ago  was  the 
necessity  of  stopping  immediately  the  sale 
of  recreational  land  in  Ontario  to  people  who 
are  not  Canadian  citizens.  We  know  that 
already  large  amounts  of  recreational  land  in 
Ontario  have  been  bought  up  by  Americans 
and  people  from  overseas.  This  has  had  the 
effect  of  forcing  up  prices  send,  I  am 
sure,  putting  out  of  reach  of  the  average 
Canadian  the  purchase  of  land  in  these  recrea- 
tional areas.  This  would  mean  of  course  that 
the  title  to  recreational  lands  now  held  by 
Americans  and  others  would  still  be  valid 
but  future  sales  of  new  land  or  lands  already 
held  would  be  permitted  only  to  Canadian 
citizens. 

Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  budget  debate  in  the 
last  session  I  spoke  of  the  need  for  assist- 
ance to  small  business.  It  seems  to  me  that 
more  and  more  the  business  of  this  province 
is  going  into  the  hands  of  big  business 
enterprises.  This  trend  is  alarming  indeed 
for  the  small  merchant  and  the  small  busi- 
nessman of  this  province.  These  people  are 
faced  with  increased  taxes,  increased  rent 
on  their  premises,  increased  wages,  increased 
costs  of  raw  materials  and  general  increases  in 
the  cost  of  doing  business.  They  often  lack 
the  cash  resources  required  today. 

Income  and  corporation  taxes  take  a  large 
slice  of  any  profits  they  may  realize,  which 
certainly  does  not  leave  enough  money  for 
expansion.  It  seems  many  of  them  are  merely 
holding  their  own  and  many  are  fighting  a 
losing  battle  against  the  large  shopping  plazas 
which  surround  suburban  areas  of  many  of 
the  cities  and  towns  in  Ontario. 

There  are  several  ways  that  the  govern- 
ment could  help  these  people:  first,  by  re- 
lieving them  of  some  of  the  tax  burden; 
second,  by  providing  low-cost  loans  for  re- 
habilitation of  stores  and  business  premises; 
third,  by  granting  them  remuneration  for 
the  cost  of  collecting  provincial  sales  taxes, 
and  fourth,  by  offering  expert  advice  when 
required. 

I  suggested  before,  and  I  suggest  again, 
that  the  government  should  set  up  what  I 
would  call  an  advisory  council  of  independ- 
ent businessmen  who  would  act  as  a  haison 
between  government  and  small  business. 


176 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Speaker,  and  fellow  members,  I  in- 
tend in  this  debate  to  present  the  record 
of  the  government  and  to  state  the  ad- 
vantages and  benefits  which  are  contained 
in  the  number  of  challenging  proposals,  pro- 
grammes and  policies  of  the  Throne  Speech. 

Mr.  M.  Cassidy  (Ottawa  Centre):  That 
\\'ould   try   even   the   member's    imagination. 

Mr.  E.  W.  Martel  (Sudbury  East):  He 
shouldn't  embarrass  himself. 

Mr.  Wardle:  I  want  to  speak  at  some 
length  about  the  imaginative  and  innovative 
proposals  contained  in  the  Throne  Speech 
related  to  housing,  consumer  protection, 
correctional  services- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  Oh,  come  on,  we  don't 
believe  it. 

Mr.  Wardle:  —programmes  for  small 
businesses,  and  new  developments  for  day- 
care centres. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  must  have  been  in  some 
other  chamber  the  day  of  the  speech. 

Mr.  Wardle:  But  before  I  proceed  to 
launch  into  specifics  of  these  public  policy 
issues,  there  is  an  urgent  need  to  consider, 
on  a  broader  perspective  and  a  wider  scale, 
the  purposes  and  goals  of  these  programmes 
and  policies  contained  in  the  Throne  Speech. 

What  underlies  the  proposals  and  policies 
of  the  Throne  Speech?  It  is  a  philosophy  of 
concern  for  the  individual  citizen  in  Ontario. 
The  government  believes  that  policies  must 
always  be  designed  to  assist  and  encourage 
the  individual  to  function  effectively  and 
creatively  in  a  free  society;  to  develop  the 
skills  necessary  for  him  or  her  to  reach 
his  or  her  full  potential;  to  encourage  a 
climate  of  individual  initiative  and  in- 
dependence free  of  increasing  regulation  and 
regimentation  from  a  variety  of  social  and 
economic  institutions,  and  yet  provide  a 
sufficient  number  of  buffer  zones  and 
mechanisms  for  peoople  to  act  freely  from 
discrimination  and  suppression. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  member  is  reading  it 
very  effectively.  It  must  have  been  written 
by   a    Harvard   speech   writer. 

Mr.  Wardle:  It  is  the  underlying  philosophy 
of  the  government  to  continue  to  emphasize 
these  principles  and  to  see  to  it  that  these 
principles  constitute  the  thrust  of  implemen- 
tation in  the  programmes  and  policies  of 
this  Throne  Speech. 

It  is  also  important  to  remind  hon.  mem- 
bers that  the  government  is  consciously 
aware    of   the    principles    of   balance    which 


needs  to  be  continually  maintained  between 
the  affairs  and  activities  of  the  private 
sector  and  the  public  sector.  Unhealthy, 
dangerous  and  unwise  would  be  the  most 
descriptive  terms  to  define  the  state  of  man's 
affairs  when  government  tends  to  encroach 
continuously  on  the  private  actions  of 
citizens  and  groups. 

As  Progressive  Conservatives,  our  philosophy 
is  suitably  attuned  to  understand  and 
appreciate  the  sensitivities  of  all  Ontario 
citizens- 
Mr.  P.  D.  Lawlor  (Lakeshore):  The  gov- 
ernment intervenes  much  too  much  these 
days. 

Mr.  Wardle:  —in  not  \\'anting  to  realize  a 
trend  of  growing  government  involvement  and 
participation  in  our  economy  and  society  that 
lacks  coherent  direction,  meets  specific  objec- 
tives and  responds  to  well-dtefined  needs  of 
our  citizenr)'. 

What    we,    as    Progressive    Conservatives, 
attach  considerable  importance  to  is  the  role 
of  the  individual- 
Mr.  Lawlor:  The  member  is  one  of  the  last 
true  Progressive  Conservatives. 

Mr.  Wardle:  —in  a  complex  urban  and  in- 
dustrial world,  in  helping  and  assisting  him 
or  her  not  just  to  cope  with  massive  change, 
but  to  function  freely,  effectively  and 
creatively. 

I  Mr.  Speaker,  now  to  the  government's  pro- 
grammes and  policies.  First,  housing. 

As  I  have  mentioned  previously,  the  gov- 
ernment's concern  for  the  rolte  of  the  indi- 
vidual in  Ontario's  society  is  based  on  assist- 
ing and  encouraging  him  or  her  to  make  a 
significant  contribution  to  the  individual's  de- 
velopment and  to  society. 

With  this  basic  objective  in  mind,  the  gov- 
ernment has  undertaken  several  new  initia- 
tives to  meet  the  housing  problem.  One  of 
these  major  initiatives  aimounced  recently 
by  the  government  was  the  Ontario  Home 
Renewal  Programme.  The  major  purpose  of 
this  new  programme  is  to  assist  residents  in 
municipalities  in  retaining  and  updating 
existing  housing  stock  where  the  federal 
Neighbourhood  Improvement  Programme  and 
the  Residential  Rehabilitation  Assistance  Pro- 
gramme do  not  apply  as  defined  by  Central 
Mortgage  and  Housing  Corp. 

The  form  of  this  provincial  assistance  will 
be  in  the  form  of  municipal  grants;  low- 
interest  loans  amounting  to  approximately  $10 
million.  The  funds  will  be  divided  on  a  per 
capita  basis  of  $4  for  municipalities  of  5,000 


MARCH  12,  1974 


177 


population  or  less;  $3  per  capita  for  cities 
between  5,000  and  100,000;  and  $2  per 
capita  to  cities  of  more  than  100,000. 

The  other  significant  feature  of  this  pro- 
gramme is  that  there  is  no  maximum  or  mini- 
mum on  the  grants  and  loans,  thus  permitting 
the  municipalities  to  have  as  much  flexibility 
built  into  the  programme  as  is  possible. 

Administration  is  to  be  central  at  the 
regional  and  local  levels.  It  is  but  one  more 
example  of  the  government's  strong  and  sin- 
cere effort  to  decentralize  the  operation  of  a 
provincial  programme  and  attests'  to  our  en- 
deavours to  make  municipal  government  vital 
and  decisive— despite  rather  unfounded  claims 
of  current  critics. 

I  know  what  the  Ontario  task  force  on 
housing  recommended.  I  also  know  that  the 
government  has  a  number  of  policy  options 
in  the  housing  field  under  consideration  and 
review.  I  would  trust  that  among  these  options 
to  minimize  the  housing  problems  are  the 
possibilities  of  providing  loan  assistance  to 
families  for  purchasing  land  on  which  mobile 
homes  could  be  placed— that  is  in  certain 
sections  of  Ontario.  I  realize  that  high  land 
costs  and  very  restrictive  zoning  regulations 
presently  prohibit  mobile  homes  from  being 
considered  as'  a  viable  housing  alternative. 

Another  innovative  measure  that  could  be 
considered  at  least  in  parts  of  Ontario  would 
be  to  study  the  possibility  of  using  shell  hous- 
ing as  an  answer  to  the  critical  housing  short- 
age. Recent  reports  indicate  that  the  shell 
housing  concept  has  met  with  some  reason- 
able success  in  Atlantic  Canada.  I  realize  that 
some  substantial  modification)  of  the  concept 
would  be  required  to  be  useful  in  large  urban 
markets,  particularly  in  light  of  the  fact  that 
low  l^nd  costs  and  a  high  handyman's  tradi- 
tion have  combined  to  assist  in  making  this 
type  of  housing  useful  in  Atlantic  Canadia. 

I  would  like  also  to  congratulate  the  gov- 
ernment for  implementing  the  proposal  for 
the  new  Ministry  of  Housing.  In  its'  very  short 
existence,  the  housing  ministry  has  already 
proved  its  real  worth  in  the  new  and  exciting 
programmes  which  it  has  undertaken. 

Certainly,  we  on  this  side  of  the  House 
understand  the  very  vital  role  of  the  private 
sector  in  implementing  new  housing  pro- 
grammes, in  its  expertise  in  providing  a  wide 
range  of  choices  for  consumers. 

We  should  not  dictate  to  the  private  sector 
in  order  to  meet  the  housing  probfem,  but 
instead  use  a  co-operative  approach  and 
partnership  basis  to  meet  housing  needs.  Con- 
frontation and  dictation  to  the  housing  indus^ 
try  are  not  the  most  satisfactory  method  of 


resolving  the  problem,  whether  it  is  getting 
the  private  sector  to  build  more  condominiums 
or  involvement  in  the  rent  supplement  pro- 
gramme. 

I  am  interested,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  new 
initiatives  and  the  rejuvenating  of  urban  areas 
in  this  province.  I  note  that  in  Ontario  last 
year  100,000  housing  units  were  started. 
However,  I  note  that  many  older  units  were 
destroyed  in  older  neighbourhoods  to  provide 
this  new  housing. 

I  welcome  the  suggestion  that  the  provin- 
cial government  enter  into  full  consultation 
with  municipal  authorities  in  providing  a  new 
programme  to  be  called  the  Ontario  Home 
Renewal  Programme.  As  already  mentioned, 
the  present  federal  RRAP  programme  pro- 
vides low-interest,  partly  forgivable  loans  to 
homeowners,  landlords  and  non-profit  hous- 
ing corporations  under  certain  conditions;  but 
only  within  areas  designated  for  funding 
under  the  Neighbourhood  Improvement  Pro- 
gramme. Non-profit  housing,  however,  can 
get  this  aid  despite  its  location. 

This  has  had  the  effect  of  barring  some 
homeowners  and  landlords  from  receiving 
needed  help  because  their  homes  are  not 
located  in  a  designated  area.  They  feel  that 
they  are  being  discriminated  against  and, 
after  all,  they  are.  Through  their  taxes  they 
are  helping  to  pay  the  cost  of  this  type  of 
programme.  When  they  are  paying  the  cost, 
they  should  have,  if  they  qualify,  the  benefits 
that  come  through  this  or  any  other  type  of 
programme. 

I  believe  this  programme  would  be  bene- 
ficial to  many  people  owning  homes  in  my 
riding.  Beaches-Woodbine  riding  has  many 
homes  that  were  constructed  50  to  75  years 
ago.  Although  many  are  well  kept,  others 
are  in  need  of  rehabilitation  in  order  to 
bring  them  up  to  acceptable  housing  stand- 
ards. 

The  city  of  Toronto  has  had  for  many 
years  a  home  inspection  programme.  When 
matters  affecting  health  and  safety  are 
found,  the  homeowner  is  required  to  make 
the  necessary  repairs.  The  city  provides  low- 
cost  loans  when  this  is  necessary.  However, 
some  people,  especially  older  people,  find  it 
very  diflficult  to  pay  for  such  improvements. 
It  seems  to  me  that  a  programme  of  grants 
would  be  helpful  to  them. 

There  is  another  matter  that  also  affects 
homeowners  that  has  concerned  me  over 
many  years.  That  is  the  matter  of  how  a 
homeowner  goes  about  getting  necessary  re- 
pairs   done   to   the    satisfaction   of   city   oflB- 


178 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


cials,  especially,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  these  days 
of  high  costs  of  materials  and  labour. 

I  developed  my  interest  in  this  matter 
when  I  was  a  member  of  Toronto  city  coun- 
cil. The  city  does  assist  homeowners  on  re- 
quest in  commenting  on  tenders  submitted 
for  necessary  repairs.  I  know  that  some  own- 
ers, when  they  are  faced  with  a  long  list  of 
repairs  to  be  made,  are  not  able  to  cope 
with  the  situation  and  put  the  house  up  for 
sale,  which  just  puts  the  problem  on  to  the 
new  owner.  If  they  cannot  do  the  work 
themselves,  what  do  they  do  to  comply? 

We  all  know  of  home  repairmen  who  take 
large  sums  of  money  from  elderly  home- 
owners for  repairs  which  may  or  may  not 
be  done  in  the  proper  manner.  These  so- 
called  businessmen  approach  persons  at  the 
door,  telling  them  they  have  facilities  to 
repair  a  roof  or  a  chimney  or  to  do  other 
outside  repair  work,  telling  them  of  the  con- 
sequences that  would  ensue  if  the  work  is 
not  done.  If  the  owner  agrees  to  have  the 
work  done,  which  is,  say,  the  repairing  of  a 
roof  or  a  chimney,  how  can  an  elderly  per- 
son climb  a  ladder  to  see  if  indeed  the  roof 
has  been  done  properly? 

Home  repairmen  who  actually  do  renova- 
tions and  buildings  and  repairs  are  required, 
when  operating  in  Metropolitan  Toronto,  to 
have  licences  issued  by  the  Metropolitan 
Licensing  Commission.  Those  who  do  paint- 
ing and  non-building  types  of  work  do  not 
require  a  licence.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
number  of  people  in  my  area  who  have 
been  placed  in  a  very  difficult  financial  posi- 
tion by  the  operations  of  certain  home  reno- 
vating business  people.  I  have  had  cases 
where  people  have  been  taken  for  hundreds 
of  dollars  by  such  home  repairmen  who  are 
operating  without  a  licence. 

I  continually  tell  homeowners  that  before 
agreeing  to  such  work,  they  should  obtain 
the  Metro  licence  number  of  these  people 
and  check  with  the  Better  Business  Bureau 
before  signing  any  contract  or  agreeing  to 
have  any  work  done.  When  the  homeowners 
have  paid  out  money  for  this  work,  which 
later  turns  out  to  be  unsatisfactory,  or  they 
have  been  charged  for  work  which  has  not 
been  properly  done,  the  only  recourse  they 
have  is  to  sue  in  a  civil  court  for  the  return 
of  their  money. 

How  could  an  80-year-old  woman  living 
alone  institute  a  court  action  to  recover 
money  taken  from  her  in  this  way  and  even 
pursue  it  through  legal  aid? 

Another  thing  done  especially  to  elderly 
people  is  to  offer  to  clean  out  the  basement 


and  to  throw  out  all  the  junk.  I  have  had 
cases  where  repairmen  have  done  this  sort 
of  work  and  the  basement  is  probably  clear- 
ed, and  the  owner  does  not  realize  that  this 
so-called  junk  does  not  go  to  the  garbage  dump, 
but  indeed  goes  to  second-hand  merchants 
who  are  often  able  to  obtain  quite  high  prices 
for  the  sale  of  this  type  of  article  now  being 
called  an  antique. 

What  should  be  done  in  the  circumstances 
that  I  have  described?  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
make  four  suggestions.  First,  give  the  munici- 
palities the  power  to  license  throughout  On- 
tario people  engaged  in  home  rehabilitation, 
whether  they  are  doing  renovating,  repairs 
or  painting. 

Two,  when  home  repairs  are  required  by 
municipal  authorities,  the  authority  should 
contact  the  homeowners  and  assist  in  setting 
out  tenders  and  approving  prices  on  work 
to  be  done.  It  should  follow  up  the  progress 
of  the  work  and  approve  the  quality  of  the 
work  before  the  final  bills  are  paid. 

Three,  draw  up  and  approve  grants  and/ 
or  low-interest  loans,  depending  on  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  homeowner. 

Four,  institute  legal  action  on  behalf  of  the 
homeowner  to  recover  funds  obtained  by 
fraudulent  means  and  provide  stiff  penalties 
for  home  renovators,  persons  or  firms  who  do 
not  live  up  to  standards  set. 

I  bring  this  up  at  this  particular  time  when 
spring  will  soon  be  on  the  way,  when  this 
type  of  operator  is  knocking  on  doors,  especi- 
ally in  large  metropolitan  areas.  I  should  add, 
however,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  most  firms  or 
persons  in  this  field  are  honest  and  hard  work- 
ing. 

We  should  remember,  as  we  move  here  in 
this  province  toward  the  recognition  that, 
while  we  need  and  require  more  new  hous- 
ing, it  is  important  also  to  maintain  and  im- 
prove our  present  housing  stock.  This  pro- 
gramme will  provide  much  needed  work  for 
the  building  industry;  but  let  us  do  all  we 
can  to  ensure  that  the  homeowner  will  not 
be  jeopardized  as  he  takes  steps  to  improve 
his  own  property. 

Mr.  Speaker,  another  matter  of  serious  con- 
cern to  homeowners  in  my  riding  and  in  ad- 
jacent ridings,  and  indeed  in  other  communi- 
ties throughout  the  province,  is  the  damage 
being  done  to  houses  and  buildings  by  the 
insect  known  as  the  termite.  No  one  seems  to 
know  when  this  insect  was  first  brought  to 
Ontario,  but  it  did  appear  about  30  years  or 
so  ago  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  city  of 
Toronto. 


MARCH  12,  1974 


179 


This  is  an  insect  that  has  its  nest  in  the 
ground  and  exists  by  living  on  wood  fibres. 
The  nest  is  on  the  outside  of  a  building,  but 
by  the  building  of  ingenious  tunnels  they 
work  their  way  through  the  foundation  of  the 
house,  eating  away  at  the  foundations  and 
woodwork  until,  in  some  houses  at  least,  the 
building  is  in  danger  of  collapse.  Some  of  the 
smaller  houses  in  my  riding  were  built  many 
years  ago  on  cedar  posts  and  have  suffered 
considerable  damage  from  this  insect.  This 
insect  is  able  to  penetrate  through  cement 
blocks,  if  they  are  not  properly  laid  and 
treated  and  have  openings  that  the  insect  can 
get  through. 

Examination  of  these  houses  shows  the  tun- 
nels leading  from  the  nest  into  the  wood- 
work of  the  home,  and  solid  I'umber  is  over  a 
period  of  time  hollowed  out  as  the  insect 
does  its  work.  There  is  a  way,  however,  to 
combat  this  infestation.  The  insect  must  re- 
turn to  the  nest  daily  in  order  to  live.  By 
digging  a  trench  around  the  house  and  by 
treating  the  walls,  this  prevents  the  re-entry 
of  the  termite. 

Through  my  efforts  several  years  ago,  To- 
ronto city  council  recognized  this  as  a  serious 
problem  to  homeowners  and  passed  a  bylaw 
in  co-operation  with  the  provincial  govern- 
ment in  order  to  help  these  homeowners  so 
affected.  A  grant  is  now  made  to  a  home- 
owner who  applies  for  assistance.  The  bill 
for  an  average  home  to  do  the  necessary 
treatment  runs  between  $500  and  $600.  This 
is  shared  50  per  cent  by  the  homeowner,  25 
per  cent  by  the  municipality  and  25  per  cent 
by  the  province. 

I  suggested  several  years  ago,  and  I  sug- 
gest now  to  the  minister  in  charge  of  the 
Ontario  Housing  Corp.,  who  is  responsible 
for  this  programme,  that  this  formula  should 
be  changed.  In  addition  to  his  share  of  the 
grant,  the  homeowner  has  the  cost  of  re- 
pairing the  damage  already  done  to  his  home, 
which  often  amounts  to  a  considerable 
amount  of  money.  My  suggestion— and  this 
would  be  a  real  help  in  the  rehabilitation  of 
older  houses,  especially  in  certain  areas— is 
that  the  homeowner's  share  should  be  re- 
duced to  25  per  cent.  The  municipality  should 
pay  25  per  cent  and  the  provincial  govern- 
ment should  bear  50  per  cent  of  the  total 
cost.  This  wouM  be  a  definite  and  immediate 
step  to  help  the  homeowner  improve  and 
maintain  his  property. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  should  like  also  to  mention 
consumer  protection.  As  all  members  of  this 
Legislature  realize,  there  has  been  a  tre- 
mendous upsurge  of  the  consumer  movement 


in  recent  years.  Consumers  are  increasingly 
aware  of  the  growing  sophistication  of  the 
marketplace  and  the  diverse  range  of  products 
which  have  come  on  to  the  market  in  the 
last  few  years.  It  is,  therefore,  most  im- 
portant for  the  consumer  and  the  business- 
man of  any  size  of  enterprise  to  realize  that  a 
viable,  fair  and  efficient  market  relationship 
develop  between  the  buyer  and  the  seller. 
Ontario  has  been  notably  in  the  forefront 
of  effective  consumer  protection  legislation 
in  North  America.  The  government  has 
pioneered  in  such  diverse  fields  as  the  fair 
regulation  of  the  real  estate  industry  through 
the  Real  Estate  and  Business  Brokers  Act; 
amendments  to  the  Insurance  Act;  and  intro- 
duction of  the  Consumer  Reporting  Act  as 
well  as  the  usefufeess  of  the  Consumer  Pro- 
tection Bureau. 

Legislation  in  the  areas  of  warranties  and 
guarantees  will  be  introduced  during  this 
session. 

What  the  public  wants  to  know  about  this 
legislation  is  its  purpose,  the  principles  on 
which  it  will  operate  and  the  scope  and 
authority  of  the  legislation.  Certainly,  the 
basic  objective  of  the  legislation  is  to  protect 
the  interests  of  both  the  consumer  and  the 
businessman  in  the  many  business  trans- 
actions which  characterize  the  sophisticated 
and  complicated  marketplace. 

Underlying  the  warranties  and  guarantees 
legislation  are  these  basic  principles: 

1.  Encouragement  of  consumers  and  pro- 
ducers to  resolve  as  many  as  possible 
warranty-related  problems  on  a  mutually 
satisfying  basis; 

2.  The  eflBcient  use  of  resources  to  resolve 
problems  rather  than  adding  costs  to  industry 
and  the  taxpayer; 

3.  The  costs  of  operations  should  not  ex- 
ceed the  benefits; 

4.  Enhancement  of  responsibility  for  prod- 
ucts between  manufacturer  and  retailer; 

5.  Fairness  of  treatment  between  producer 
and  consumer. 

iWhat  the  government  wants  to  achieve  is  a 
system  which  removes  the  constant  necessity 
of  government  to  intervene  in'  the  market- 
place, and  thereby  to  devel'op  a  fair  and  more 
realistic  consumer  marketplace  for  all  On- 
tario citizens. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  spoken  in  the  past  in 
some  detail  about  the  plight  of  the  small 
businessman,  so  often  ignored  in  the  past  by 
government  and  other  sectors  of  the  economic 
community. 


180 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  F.  Laughren  (Nickel  Belt):  Always 
ignored.  Always. 

Mr.  Wardle:  rm  most  gratified  to  see  that 
the  government  will  be  introducing  significant 
legislation  with  respect  to  unfair  trade  and 
business  practices.  Ideally,  the  approach  to 
be  taken  in  these  matters  is  not  to  establish 
regulations  and  standards  which  tend  to  hurt 
the  small  businessman  and  to  consume  his 
valuable  time  in  report-writing  activities,  but 
to  promote  effective  ongoing  and  co-operative 
relationships  between  government  and  busi- 
ness. 

What  I  am  advocating  is  positive  regula- 
tion of  business  associations  instead  of  re- 
strictive and  narrow  measures  designed  to 
frustrate  the  individual  businessman.  What 
we  need  in  Ontario  is  greater  managerial  and 
trading  assistance  programmes  for  the  indi- 
vidual businessman  to  foster  his  skills  and 
improve  his  productivity,  positive  measures 
which  I  know  the  government  will  consider. 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  speak  for  a 
few  moments  on  the  matter  of  correctional 
services,  which  I  know  is  a  matter  of  great 
interest  to  all  members  of  this  House.  I  want 
to  commend  the  government  for  its  farsighted 
and  progressive  measures  to  assist  the  adult 
and  juvenile  offender.  These  measures  include 
improved  integration  of  group  homes,  proba- 
tion and  institutional  services,  thus  ensuring 
better  co-operation  with  all  agencies  of  the 
community.  By  placing  juveniles  in  training 
schools  closer  to  their  homes- 
Mr.  Martel:  Banish  them. 

Mr.  Wardle:  —we  remove  some  of  the  pres- 
sures and  strains  placed  on  the  juvenile  in  an 
ahen  environment. 

Mr.  Martel:  Outlaw  them. 

Mr.  Wardle:  In  this  way,  greater  interaction 
between  the  training  school  and  the  home 
will  assist  the  rehabilitation  chances  of  the 
young  offender.  Through  this  process  greater 
community  resources  can  be  marshalled  in  the 
rehabilitation  of  the  young  offender. 

Hon.  members  should  be  aware  of  the 
exciting,  very  personal  and  meaningful  pros- 
pects of  personal  development  for  adult 
offenders  in  the  rehabilitation  process.  The 
government  intends  to  promote  the  further 
development  of  small  community-based  adult 
residences  for  rehabilitation  linked  with  the 
temporary  absence  programme  and  improved 
employment  prospects  for  adult  offenders  in 
the  northern  areas  of  the  province. 

Another  innovative  feature  of  the  cor- 
rectional services  responsibility  is  a  proposal 


to  involve  inmates  serving  short  terms  in  an 
effective  employment  programme  with  private 
enterprise. 

The  terms  of  the  proposal  in  effect  mean 
a  simulation  of  working  conditions  related  to 
what  actually  happens  in  society.  Inmates 
chosen  for  this  programme  would  receive 
competitive  wages  compared  to  those  in  the 
real  work  force.  These  types  of  programmes 
offer  continuing  and  improved  prospects  to 
inmates  to  return  to  society  able  and  wilHng 
to  contribute  fully  to  it. 

I  believe  it  is  worth  detailing  some  of  the 
other  developments  which  are  under  way  in 
our  correctional  services  system. 

One  of  the  more  interesting  and  intriguing 
experiments  which  went  into  operation  last 
year  was  the  Camp  Bison  programme.  The 
essential  ingredients  were  a  well-prepared 
course  of  action  for  correctional  officers,  who 
are  involved  in  learning  about  the  social 
pressures  and  situations  that  create  the  type 
of  conformity  displayed  by  most  inmates.  The 
experimental  programme  is  designed  to  break 
down  the  subculture  and  help  the  inmates  to 
think  for  themselves  and  to  communicate 
positively  with  the  correctional  officers  trained 
to  help  them. 

The  temporary  absence  programme  remains 
the  basic  vehicle  for  rehabilitating  inmates. 
Depending  upon  the  type  of  offence  which 
the  inmate  committed,  his  educational  level 
and  otiier  important  factors,  temporary  leaves 
can  be  devised  to  meet  an  inmate's  particular 
need  for  educational  and  personal  improve- 
ment. 

Through  these  innovative  and  experimental 
programmes,  correctional  serxices  have 
assumed  a  new  social  dimension.  Keeping  in- 
mates confined  is  more  costly  to  our  society 
in  the  long  run  than  assisting  inmates  and 
helping  them  to  lead  useful  lives  upon  their 
return  to  society. 

The  government  is  to  be  commended  for  its 
forward-looking  and  progressive  corrections 
philosophy. 

Mr.  Speaker,  on  the  matter  of  daycare 
centres  the  government  is  intimatelv  con- 
cerned with  the  proper  social  and  personal 
development  of  the  children  of  Ontario.  To- 
day's youngsters  will  be  tomorrow's  leaders. 
We  must  constantly  strive  to  provide  the  sup- 
port facilities  and  programmes  to  realize  that 
kind  of  promise. 

It  was  only  last  year  that  the  Minister  of 
Community  and  Social  Services  (Mr. 
Brunelle)  presented  legislation  for  our  con- 
sideration that  would  extend  grants  and  sub- 
sidies to  individual  corporations  or  classes  of 


MARCH  12,  1974 


181 


corporations,  and  widen  the  base  of  financial 
support  to  working  mothers  whose  chfldren 
require  safe  and  proper  care  during  her  work 
day  to  prevent  her  from  worrying  about  their 
situation.  We  are  told  that  regulations  Avill  be 
announced  in  a  few  days  and  a  programme 
will  be  under  way.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  merely 
stating  positive  programmes  of  this  govern- 
ment that  I  am  sure  even  the  Liberals  and 
the  NDP  can  fully  support. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon  (Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion): There  is  not  a  single  member  of  the 
government  here. 

Mr.  M.  Gaunt  ( Huron-Bruce ) :  Nobody  be- 
lieves it  but  the  member. 

Mr.  Wardle:  This  government  believes  in 
positive  programmes. 

Mr.  Martel:  Now  if  the  member  had  said 
"banned,  outlawed." 

Mr.    Wardle:    Mr.    Speaker,    I  listened   all 

yesterday- 
Mr.  D.  C.  MacDonald  (York  South):  And 

he  learned  a  lot,  too. 

Mr.  Wardle:  —to  the  Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion and  the  leader  of  the  NDP  ( Mr.  Lewis ) , 
and  1  didn't  hear  any  positive  programme  of 
what  their  parties  stand  for.  I'm  still  at  a 
loss  to  know  What  they  stand  for. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  How  can  he  say  that? 

Mr.  Wardle:  At  least  the  government  does 
have  a  positive  programme  that  the  members 
of  this  government  support. 

Mr.  Martel:  What  is  it? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  We  have  a  solution  to 
the  housing  problems  but  evidently  the  gov- 
ernment is  not  very  interested  in  the  mem- 
ber's alternatives.  There  is  nobody  here. 

Mr.  Wardle:  In  the  Throne  Speech  the 
government  is  proposing  a  series  of  measures 
to  supply  high-priority  resources  for  those 
groups  whose  needs  are  still  to  be  met;  in- 
cluding the  establishment  of  new  programmes 
of  assistance  for  community  co-operative  day- 
care centres  for  low-income  areas,  for  handi- 
capped children  and  native  children.  It  speaks 
of  our  deep  and  abiding  interest  in  reaching 
out  to  assist  those  seriously  disadvantaged  and 
to  permit  them  to  share  in  the  resources  of 
our  productive  economv. 

Mr.  Martel:  One  hundred  and  fifty-one 
dollars  a  month. 


Mr.  Wardle:  Mr.  Speaker,  often  critics 
accuse  us  of  an  absence  of  social  commitment 
and  social  action  for  the  disadvantaged  sector 
of  Ontario  society.  These  same  critics  pro- 
claim that  the  government  does  not  possess  a 
socially  coherent  philosophy  for  the  indivi- 
dual. Naturally  these  claims  are  unfounded. 
The  Throne  Speech  offers  a  significant  packet 
of  economic  and  social  measures  designed  to 
meet  the  needs  of  the  disadvantaged.  This 
Progressive  Conservative  government  seeks  to 
resolve  problems  and  citizens'  concerns 
positively  and  responsibly. 

Mr.  Martel:  Why  doesn't  the  member  see 
what  is  in  the  bloody  book  before  he  gets  up 
and  gives  oif  such  prattle? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Wardle:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  listened  yester- 
day afternoon  to  the  leader  of  the  NDP,  and 
I  have  never  heard  such  a  negative  approach 
to  the  problems  of  this  province. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  It  was  not  negative  at  all. 
The  member  wasn't  listening. 

Mr.  Wardle:  Most  of  his  speech  had  to  do 
with  food  prices.  And  surely  the  fanners  of 
Ontario  are  not  taken  in  by  the  policv  of  the 
NDP. 

Mr.  Martel:  Guaranteed  income  in  BC  for 
them. 

Mr.  Wardle:  The  farmers  of  this  province 
have  a  very,  very  low  price  for  their  products. 
This  is  the  policy  of  the  NDP— 

Mr.  Martel:  The  chain  stores  have  a  very 
low  price  for  farm  produce. 

Mr.  W^ardle:  —to  keep  the  wages  of 
farmers  down.  I  don't  think,  Mr,  Speaker, 
that  many  farmers  in  Ontario  are  making 
very  much  money  today.  I  don't  think  the 
public  of  Ontario  worry  too  much  if  the 
price  of  food  rises  a  little,  if  they  know 
the  farmer  himself  is  getting  a  better  income 
than  he  has  had  in  the  past;  and  the  only 
way  we  are  going  to  keep  farmers  on  the 
land,  in  my  opinion,  is  to  make  certain  that 
they  get  a  decent  return  for  their  work. 

Speaking  further  about  the  remarks  of 
the  leader  of  the  NDP  on  food  prices  and 
inflation,  and  what  inflation  is  doing,  his 
party  in  Ottawa  has  the  power  to  bring 
down  the  present  government  in  Ottawa 
which  is  responsible  for  many  aspects  of  in- 
flation. 

Mr.  Martel:  Except  on  the  Food  Prices 
Review  Board,  the  hon.  member's  colleague 
voted  with  the  Liberals. 


182 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Wardle:  If  they  were  sincere- 
Mr.  Martel:  They  voted  with  the  Liberals 

on  the  Food  Prices  Review  Board.  The  hon. 

member    should    learn    that   before    he    gets 

up  and  beats  his  gums  off. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Wardle:  If  they  were  sincere  in  their 
wish  to  help  Canadians,  it  would  not  in- 
clude co-operating  with  the  Liberal  federal 
government  in  maintaining  the  present 
Liberal  policies. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  Conservatives  voted 
against  the  Food  Prices  Review  Board  with 
the  power  to  roll  back  prices. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  Other  mem- 
bers will  have  an  opportunity  to  enter  the 
debate  later. 

Mr.  Martel:  Well,  tell  him  to  tell  the 
truth. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  Wardle:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  prepared  my 
remarks  not  wishing  to  say  anything  against 
the  opposition,  whether  it  be  the  Liberals 
or  the  NDP.  But  I'm  moved  at  this  time  to 
say  a  few  things.  It  seems  to  me  that  as 
far  as  the  NDP  in  Ottawa  are  concerned, 
they  can  bring  down  this  Liberal  govern- 
ment any  time  they  wish  to  do  so. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  They  had  three  chances 
in  the   Tory  party  and   they   muffed   them. 

Mr.  Wardle:  And  if  they  are  worried  about 
inflation,  as  was  the  leader  of  the  NDP 
yesterday,  they  should  bring  down  the 
present  government  and  put  in  a  government 
led  by  Mr.  Stanfield,  who  would  do  some- 
thing about  inflation. 

Mr.  Martel:  That  would  be  a  disaster! 

An  hon.  member:  How  is  the  hon.  mem- 
ber doing  with  his  federal  riding  these 
days? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please. 

Mr.  J.  F.  Foulds  (Port  Arthur):  The 
federal  Tory  party  is  the  only  albatross  I 
know  with  an  ancient  mariner  around  his 
neck. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order,  please.  The  member 
for  Beaches-Woodbine  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  Wardle:  Mr.  Speaker,  before  I  con- 
clude my  remarks,  I  would  like  to  say  this: 


I  was  in  this  House  for  a  good  part  of  the 
speech  of  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition. 
I  was  in  this  House  yesterday  and  listening, 
without  any  interruption  at  all,  to  the 
leader  of  the  NDP.  Surely,  when  a  govern- 
ment member  gets  up  to  speak,  the  mem- 
bers of  the  NDP  could  at  least  offer  the 
same  courtesy  as  government  members  offer 
the  opposition. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Oh,  having  provoked  in- 
terruptions now  he  is  crying  about  them. 

Mr.  Foulds:  The  hon.  member  should  be 
flattered  that  we  consider  him  important 
enough  to  heckle. 

Mr.  Wardle:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  sure  that 
my  final  remarks  will  meet  with  the  atten- 
tion that  I  think  they  deserve,  and  I'm  sure 
that  all  the  members  of  the  House  will  agree 
with  them. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Why  are  all  the  Tories  leav- 
ing? 

Mr.  R.  G.  Hodgson  (Victoria-Haliburton): 
The  hon.  member  opposite  has  just  come 
back. 

An  hon.  member:  He  just  came  in. 

Mr.  Wardle:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  my  final 
remarks  I  should  like  to  express  my  words 
of  gratitude  for  the  fine  way  in  which  the 
Lieutenant  Governor  of  this  province,  the 
Honourable  W.  Ross  Macdonald,  has  served 
as  the  representative  in  Ontario  of  our  gra- 
cious sovereign.  Queen  Elizabeth. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Well  said. 

Mr.  Wardle:  He  has  conducted  himself 
with  dignity,  great  ability  and  with  a  dedica- 
tion to  his  duties.  His  term  of  oflBce  has 
enhanced  the  honourable  oflBce  that  he  holds. 
I  know  that  the  people  of  Ontario  will  look 
forward  to  welcoming  His  Honoiur's  succes- 
sor. Dr.  Pauline  A.  McGibbon. 

Whilst  speaking  of  the  oflBce  of  Lieuten- 
ant Governor,  I  would  like  to  express  my 
hope  that  serious  consideration  will  be  given 
by  the  govenmient  to  provide  a  home  in 
Toronto  for  our  lieutenant  governors.  This 
was  formerly  the  practice,  and  I  see  no 
reason  why  this  policy  should  not  be  re- 
sumed. 

Nearly  every  province  in  this  Dominion 
has  a  government  house.  Many  of  my  con- 
stituents have  expressed  their  agreement  with 
this  proposal.  I  feel  certain  that  good  use 
would  be  made  of  such  a  facility,  especially 
as  Ontario  is  increasingly  serving  as  host  to 


MARCH  12,  1974 


183 


visiting  organizations  and  dignitaries  from 
other  parts  of  Canada,  the  British  Common- 
wealth and  foreign  comi tries.  Such  a  home 
would  also  allow  members  of  our  royal  fam- 
ily to  stay  there  and  to  entertain  and  wel- 
come our  citizens  in  a  dignified  setting. 

Every  resident  of  Ontario  will  be  looking 
forward  with  great  anticipation  to  the  visit 
this  June  to  Ontario  and  Quebec  of  Her 
Gracious  Majesty  Queen  Elizabeth,  the  Queen 
Mother. 

Mr.  Martel:  Don't  include  me  in  that. 

Mr.  Wardle:  Her  Majesty  is  held  in  high 
regard  by  our  citizens,  especially  by  those 
who  remember  the  fine  example  she  and  her 
husband,  our  late  sovereign.  King  George 
VI,  set  during  the  perilous  days  of  World 
War  n.  When  the  light  of  freedom  had 
nearly  been  extinguished  in  Europe  and  our 
western  civilization  was  in  danger,  our  King 
and  Queen  were  able  to  rally  our  people  and 
those  who  love  freedom  everywhere  to  fight 
against  those  who  would  have  buried  the 
great  heritage  of  freedom  which  has  sus- 
tained us  through  the  centuries. 

I  know  that  the  people  of  Ontario  and 
Quebec  will  offer  Her  Majesty  a  warm  re- 
ception. We  know  the  personal  sacrifice  that 
such  a  position  requires  and  the  complete 
dedication  of  Her  Majesty  to  her  duties.  I 
hope  that  the  school  boards  will,  in  advance 
of  the  Queen  Mother's  visit,  bring  to  the 
attention  of  students  the  importance  of  the 
constitutional  monarchy  in  our  system  of 
government  and  will  declare  at  least  part  of 
the  day  a  holiday  when  Her  Majesty  visits 
their  coinmunities. 

Mr.  Foulds:  We  can't  close  the  schools. 

Mr.  Wardle:  I  am  most  impressed,  Mr. 
Speaker,  by  the  large  numbers  of  our  young 
people  who  want  to  learn  more  about  our 
constitutional  monarchy  and  its  present  and 
future  role  in  our  parliamentary  system.  This 
interest  has  been  especially  sparked  by  the 
overwhelmingly  successful  visit  last  June  of 
our  sovereign  Queen  Elizabeth.  Her  Majesty 
was  greeted  with  great  enthusiasm  by  Cana- 
dians of  all  ethnic  backgrounds. 

We  must  not  forget  that  constitutional 
monarchy  is  respected  not  only  by  those  of 
British  and  French  descent  but  by  people 
who  have  come  here  from  all  parts  of  the 
world.  Many  of  the  critics  of  the  monarchy 
tend  to  forget  that  the  system  of  monarchy 
is  also  a  respected  institution  in  many  coun- 
tries from  which  Canada's  iiimiigration  has 
come. 


When  our  newest  citizens  swear  allegiance 
to  Her  Majesty  Queen  Elizabeth,  her  heirs 
and  successors,  they  come  to  realize  that  the 
monarchy  is  the  oldest  of  Canada's  political 
institutions  having  come  down  to  Canadians 
through  1,146  years  of  political  development. 
These  new  Canadians  also  realize  and  appre- 
ciate the  fact  that  our  constitutional  mon- 
archy provides  Canadians  with  the  greatest 
constitutional  safeguard  against  communism 
or  any  other  form  of  totalitarian  government 
or  dictatorship. 

The  most  essential  and  distinctive  institu- 
tions of  the  Canadian  government  and  the 
ultimate  defences  of  the  constitution  are 
based  on  the  position  and  powers  of  the 
Crown.  The^e  include  the  whole  of  the 
executive  power  of  the  government  of  the 
day,  the  cabinet  system,  the  principle  of 
responsibility,  and  the  ultimate  assurance 
that  the  genuine  popular  will  shall  prevail. 
To  a  democratic  people,  the  monarchical  form 
of  government  testifies  to  the  ability  of  that 
people  to  develop  a  responsive  political  sys- 
tem from  an  authoritarian  feudal  structure 
without  passing  through  the  violence  ot 
revolution.  The  constitutional  monarchy  has 
a  proud  record  in  the  development  of  the 
Canadian  nation. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Hasn't  the  member  ever 
heard  of  Cromwell? 

Mr.    Wardle:    How    fortunate    we    are    to 
have  as  our  sovereign  a  most  gracious  lady 
who,    by    her    example,    has    endorsed    high 
standards- 
Mr.  Foulds:  So  Cromwell  was  a  Commie? 

Mr.  Wardle:  —and  has  encouraged  the 
worthwhile  traditions— 

Hon.  E.  A.  Winkler  (Chairman,  Manage- 
ment Board  of  Cabinet):  The  member 
shouldn't  show  his  ignorance. 

Mr.  Foulds:  He  doesn't  even  know  who 
Cromwell  was. 

Mr.  Wardle:  —so  many  of  which  vitally 
reflect  the  better  aspects  of  civilized  be- 
haviour and  living. 

Her  Majesty  has  carried  out  her  royal 
duties  with  dignity  and  zeal  and  has  truly 
carried  out  her  promise  to  her  people  in  1953 
that,  to  their  service,  she  would  give  her 
heart  and  soul  every  day  of  her  life. 

Mr.  G.  Nixon  (Dovercourt):  How  true. 

Mr.  Wardle:  Mr.  Speaker,  how  proud  we 
are  to  be  Canadians  and  to  live  in  Ontario, 
this  great  province  of  opportunity. 


184 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  P.  G.  Givens  (York-Forest  Hill):  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  rise  to  participate  in  this  annual 
ritual  of  reply  to  the  Throne  Speech  which 
ushers  in  the  rites  of  spring.  As  I  rise  to 
speak,  I  don't  know  whether  to  cry  or  to 
laugh  because  in  my  entire  public  career 
()\  er  the  past  25  or  30  years  I  think  I  have 
spoken  in  cities  all  over  Canada,  some  in  the 
United  States,  some  in  other  parts  of  the 
world,  but  never  before  have  I  risen  to  speak 
imder  circumstances  such  as  these,  when  the 
complete  vista  in  front  of  me  is  totally 
blank. 

Mr.  D.  M.  Deacon  (York  Centre):  Even 
though  there  are  people  sitting  over  there. 

Mr.  Givens:  Even  when  there  are  people 
sitting  there,  it's  usually  blank.  The  House 
leader  just  sat  down,  called  over  the  hon. 
member  for  Riverdale  (Mr.  Ren  wick)—  and 
now  another  member  has  just  walked  in— 
so  I  won't  have  to  look  at  a  totally  blank 
wall. 

I  don't  think  Tm  ever  going  to  get  used 
to  this  sort  of  a  situation,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  have 
no  speech  to  read.  That's  probably  where  I 
made  the  mistake.  I  should  have  a  speech 
writer  write  me  a  speech  which  I  can  read 
off. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Breithaupt  (Kitchener):  The 
Minister  of  Education  (Mr.  Wells)  might 
have  one. 

Mr.  Givens:  Probably  they  have  a  better 
system  in  the  United  States  where  they  just 
hand  in  their  speeches  and  get  them  printed 
in  the  Congressional  Record. 

The  members  have  just  received  a  raise, 
I  would  have  thought  that  when  members  in 
the  House  get  up  to  speak  during  a  Throne 
Speech  debate  that  there  would  be  more 
people  sitting  here  to  listen  to  them— because 
making  a  speech  is  a  product  of  the  heart 
and  the  soul  and  the  mind.  You  use  your 
mouth  to  articulate  it,  but  you  would  like  to 
feel  that  you  are  communicating  with  people. 

I  don't  care  whether  people  agree  with 
me  or  whether  they  disagree  with  me,  or  if 
they  want  to  boo  or  if  they  want  to  jeer  at 
me  or  if  they  want  to  scorn  me. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  We  want  to  hear  the 
hon.  member. 

Mr.  Givens:  But  at  least  a  member  of  this 
Legislature  should  have  an  opportunity  to 
speak  to  human  beings— and  not  just  to  be 
rea:l  in  Hansard.  Not  that  I  am  that  immodest 
that  I  feel  that  I  have  anything  to  say  that 
is  of  such  great  importance,  or  that  the  man- 


ner in  which  I  will  say  it  will  be  so  enter- 
taining that  it  should  enrapture  those  who 
sit  here— but  good  heavens,  Mr.  Speaker,  what 
is  the  purpose  of  making  a  speech?  God  has 
given  us  mouths  and  tongues  with  which  to 
articulate  for  the  purpose  of  communicating 
with  one  another.  How  do  we  communicate 
when  we  sit  in  a  chamber  like  this  where 
there  is  hardly  a  quorum? 

I  think  maybe  a  quorum  has  just  appeared 
right  now  of  20  members.  But  as  Sam  Ray- 
burn  said,  "In  order  to  get  along  you  must 
go  along,"  and  my  leader  and  the  House 
leader  have  said  that  I  have  to  participate  in 
this  annual  ritual  of  replying  to  the  Speech 
from  the  Throne.  So  here  I  am.  I  shall  do 
that. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Stokes  (Thunder  Bay):  The  mem- 
ber shouldn't  trouble  himself. 

Mr.  Givens:  I  shall  use  my  ability  to  reply 
to  the  Speech  from  the  Throne. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Givens:  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  hon. 
member  says  I  shouldn't  trouble  myself.  I 
hope  that  I  am  not  being  interpreted  in  that 
light;  but  really,  what  is  the  purpose  of  talk- 
ing if  you  are  not  communicating  with  some- 
body? Let  me  tell  the  hon.  member  that  in 
council  we  had  people  who  sat  there  and 
they  listened— and  you  turned  them  on  or  you 
turned  them  off  and  you  could  persuade  them 
about  something.  Now  we  know  very  well 
that  nobody  is  going  to  persuade  anybody 
around  here  of  anything.  The  Juggernaut  will 
roll  on  and  we  just  participate.  It's  sort  of  a 
hypocritical  ritual  really  when  it  comes  down 
to  it. 

An  hon.  member:  Storm  the  barricades! 

Mr.  Givens:  Anyway,  having  said  that,  I 
want  to  deal  with  some  of  the  issues— well, 
there's  no  point  in  storming  the  barricades. 

Hon.  A.  Grossman  (Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development):  We  are  listening  to 
the  member. 

Mr.  Givens:  Well,  it's  really  frustrating  any- 
way. I  thank  those  members  who  are  here. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Givens:  I  know  that  there  is  nothing 
the  members  are  going  to  learn  from  me, 
but  at  least  it's  comforting  to  know  that 
some  of  them  are  friendly  enough  to  sit  here 
even  though  some  of  them  are  busy  reading 
the  newspapers,  or  their  mail— 


MARCH  12,  1974 


185 


Mr.  MacDonald:  It's  a  challenge  to  the 
mem  her  for  York-Forest  Hill. 

Mr.  Givens:  —or  indulging  in  other  things, 
such  as  consulting  with  one  another.  How- 
ever— 

Mr.  R.  D.  Kennedy  (Peel  South):  Could  I 
leave  for  a  couple  of  minutes? 

Mr.  Givens:  My  leader— 

An  hon.  member:  Sit  down! 

Mr.  Givens:  My  leader  and  the  hon.  leader 
of  the  NDP  made  much  of  the  fact,  and  right- 
ly so,  that  there  is  nothing  in  this  Throne 
Speech  that  says  anything  in  particular  about 
the  subject  of  inflation,  which  is  supposed 
to  be  so  important  to  everybody  living  in  this 
province  and,  indeed,  in  this  whole  country. 

I  sometimes  think  that  the  reason  why  gov- 
ernments—both federal  and  provincial— are  not 
doing  anything  about  inflation  is  because  they 
don't  want  to  do  anything  about  inflation. 
I  feel  that  there  is  almost  sort  of  an  un- 
conscious or  a  subconscious  deliberate  con- 
spiracy not  to  deal  with  inflation.  And  I'll  tell 
the  members  why.  Because  I  think  a  large 
sector  of  our  population  benefits  from  infla- 
tion. 

I  think  there  are  professional  people,  there 
are  business  people,  there  are  strongly  or- 
ganized union  members  in  the  big  unions,  in 
the  strong  unions— not  the  underprivilteged 
people  who  aren't  organized— who  benefit 
from  a  httle  bit  of  inflation,  because  it  is 
like  a  little  bit  of  intoxication.  It's  euphoric. 
It's  liuoyant. 

I  know  many  people  in  business  who  are 
benefiting  by  virtue  of  the  fact  that  they 
have  acquired  debt.  They  have  bought  ma- 
chinery or  equipment  and  they  are  paying  it 
off  in  half-dollar  bills,  so  to  speak,  because 
their  debt  has  shrunk  in  relation  to  the  infla- 
tion that  has  taken  place  at  the  rate  of  from 
8  to  10  per  cent  a  year- and  probably  in 
1974  it  will  be  greater. 

It  isn't  only  a  matter  of  the  big  corporations 
or  the  big  companies.  A  lot  of  small  people 
benefit  from  inflation,  and  they  are  happy  to 
have  this  situation  continue.  And  the  govern- 
ments are  copping  out  and  they  are  opting 
out. 

The  provincial  governments  blame  the  fed- 
eral government.  The  federal  government 
l^lames  the  UN,  international  affairs— all  kinds 
of  things.  Everything  is  being  attributed  to 
the  oil  shortage  today,  from  the  price  of 
gasoline  for  cars  to  sexual  impotency. 


Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  W  ho  is  dealing  with  that? 

Mr.  Givens:  They  are  copping  out.  The 
people  they  are  not  dealing  with  are  the  little 
people,  the  kind  of  people  the  hon.  member 
thinks  he  represents,  who  are  involved  in  a 
bit  of  a  ripoff  here  and  there.  A  member  of 
the  NDP  got  up  yesterday  and  read  into  the 
record  a  long  list  of  properties  in  areas  which 
I  used  to  consider  my  turf  when  I  was  a  kid 
— Markham  St.,  Clinton  St.,  Niagara  St.  and 
all  those  streets  where  working  people  live. 
As  for  these  values  that  members  have  heard 
of,  of  people  who  had  these  houses  on  these 
various  streets,  these  are  people  from 
factories.  These  are  people  that  I  worked  with 
in  the  steel  mills  and  in  the  packing  houses 
of  this  city  and  these  are  the  people  who 
benefited. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Markham  St.? 

Mr.  Givens:  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Honest  Ed  has  a  place  there. 

Mr.  Givens:  One  of  the  reasons  why  these 
properties  are  going  up  in  vallie  is  that  many 
of  these  properties  are  income  producing. 
Many  of  these  people  have  boarders.  They 
are  not  supposed  to  have  them  in  many  cases 
but  they  have  boardbrs  or  they  rent  out 
accommodation.  They  get  a  certain  amount  of 
income,  which  they  don't  declare  on  their 
income  taxes,  and  this  helps  them  ward  off 
inflation. 

It  would  be  interesting  if  the  member  sent 
his  research  workers  on  the  job  of  looking  up 
the  assessment  roles  of  these  respective  prop- 
erties. I  will  wager  that  he  will  find  that  the 
assessed  values  of  these  houses  havai't 
changed  in  20  or  25  years.  They  are  probably 
paying  realty  taxes  on  values  that  were  estab- 
lished by  the  assessment  people  about  20  or 
25  years  ago.  If  one  were  to  reassess  them— 
and  I  wish  the  Minister  of  Revenue  (Mr. 
Meen)  were  here-it  wouM  probably  take 
about  10  years  to  reassess  them,  and  by  the 
time  he  got  all  the  reassessments  finished, 
they  would  probably  be  out  of  date  as  well. 

It's  interesting  that  the  leader  of  the  NDP 
pours  scorn  on  these  developers  and  these 
companies  and  that  he  talks  about  their  lack- 
ing a  moral  obligation.  Many  of  the  de- 
velopers, or  these  companies  tiiat  he  talked 
about  yesterday,  were  people  who  were 
bom  and  grew  up  on  these  streets  and  in 
these  houses  that  he  talked  about  yesterday. 

Mr.  Foulds:  That  still  doesn't  excuse  it. 

Mr.  Givens:  They  had  social  obligations. 
Manv    of   them    were   socialists    or   many   of 


186 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


them  were  members  of  the  CCF.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  I  know  a  couple  of  them  who  ran  as 
provincial  candidates  for  the  NDP  and  some 
of  them  were  even  further  left  than  that. 

I  remember  coming  into  the  gallery  here 
when  I  was  a  student  at  the  school  across  the 
street  and  Joe  Salsberg  was  sitting  here  and 
A.  A.  MacLeod,  representing  the  Labour  Pro- 
gressive Party.  They  were  the  people  who 
represented  these  poor  struggling  developers 
who  have  become  these  ogres  that  the  mem- 
ber accuses  tod^y  of  lacking  social  obligations. 
They  think  that  they  are  fulfilHng  their  social 
obligations.  They  sit  on  hospital  boards,  on 
charitable  institutions,  philanthropic  institu- 
tions, and  cultural  organizations.  These  are 
the  member's  people,  and  some  still  picture 
themselves  as  NDPers. 

I  don't  justify  it,  but  in  all  fairness,  many 
of  them  have  fathers  who  were  socialists  in 
the  old  country  and  had  to  escape  the  coun- 
tries that  they  came  from  in  order  to  live  in 
these  places  that  the  member  talks  about. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  have  no 
comer  on  virtue.  We  never  have  claimed  it. 
We  have  the  member  for  High  Park  (Mr. 
Shulman)  after  all. 

Mr.  Givens:  It  is  the  same  thing  with  the 
price  of  food. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Don't  say  that  when  he  is 
in  the  House. 

Mr.  Givens:  It  is  not  enough  to  talk  about 
inflation  in  housing  and  food.  The  same  thing 
apphes  to  recreation  and  entertainment.  You 
go  out  to  buy  a  hockey  stick  for  a  kid  or  a 
pair  of  skates  or  a  jersey  or,  if  you  want  to 
move  into  the  aristocracy  of  the  boaters,  you 
buy  a  canoe  or  a  rowboat  or  a  sailboat,  and 
it  is  just  preposterous  what  has  been  happen- 
ing. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  One  of  those  little  items 
that  sleeps  six. 

Mr.  Givens:  It  is  absolutely  ridiculous.  As 
far  as  housing  is  concerned,  the  leader  of  the 
NDP  says,  "We  will  buy  the  land  from  the 
developers  at  the  price  that  they  pay  for  it 
and  we  will  pay  them  that  value  and  we  will 
pay  them  holding  costs."  Well,  that's  very 
generous  of  them,  certainly  a  great  dfeal  more 
generous  than  what  the  Tories  are  doing. 

This  government  went  ahead  on  a  parkway 
belt  and  just  zoned  down  property  and 
they've  confiscated  the  property  and  given 
the  people  nothing  for  it.  So  thanks  for 
small  blessings,  if  this  is  what  the  leader  of 
the  NDP  is  going  to  do. 


Then  he's  going  to  provide  cheap  mortgage 
money  at  six  per  cent  from  the  provincial 
savings  accounts  of  the  people  who  have 
their  pension  funds  in  the  provincial  savings 
account.  They're  going  to  give  out  mortgages 
at  six  per  cent.  Are  we  going  to  subsidize 
that  six  per  cent?  Why  should  a  person  who 
has  money  in  a  provincial  savings  account 
only  be  able  to  benefit  to  the  extent  of  six 
per  cent  when  somebody  else  is  paying  9% 
per  cent?  Surely  that  wouldn't  be  fair? 

Mr.  Foulds:  They're  only  getting  4V2  per 
cent  now. 

Mr.  Givens:  And  when  he  says  that  this 
Tory  government  won't  do  it,  I  think  he'd 
be  very  surprised.  The  Tory  government 
probably  will  do  it,  because  they're  confiscat- 
ing right  now,  and  I'll  come  to  that  in  a 
moment. 

The  leader  of  the  NDP  went  along  and 
he  talked  about  how  they're  going  to  tax 
natural  resources.  They're  going  to  put  a 
tax  on  the  mines,  and  they're  going  to  put 
a  tax  on  the  oil  wells  and  on  uranium  and 
on  everything  else.  And  as  he  was  talking 
about  tnis  great  tax  that  he  was  going  to 
put  on,  and  how  three  of  the  provinces  that 
have  NDP  governments  have  done  this  and 
the  mines  haven't  moved  out  and  the  corpo- 
rations haven't  moved  out  and  jobs  haven't 
moved  out  of  the  provinces,  rriy  eye  caught 
a  clipping,  an  article  on  the  financial  page 
of  the  Star  yesterday,  and  I  want  to  read  it 
to  the  members.  It's  all  right  for  him  to 
speak  so  confidently  and  so  stridently  about 
the  great  success  that  British  Columbia  has 
achieved— 

Mr.  Foulds:  Never  stridently,  only  elo- 
quently. 

Mr.  Givens:  —but  here's  an  article  from 
the  Star,  dateline  Victoria,  that  says  that: 
The  mining  association  of  British  Col- 
umbia has  told  Mines  Minister  Leo  Nim- 
sick  that  the  proposed  Mineral  Royalties 
Act  must  be  revised  or  the  government 
will  destroy  mining  in  BC. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Did  they  say  they  were  going 
to  move  out? 

Mr.  Stokes:  Does  the  member  for  York- 
Forest  Hill  have  an  interest  there? 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

An  hon.  member:  How  do  they  move  a 
mine? 


MARCH  12,  1974 


187 


Mr.  Givens:  To  continue: 

The  association  represents  80  companies. 
W.  J.  Tough,  association  president,  said 
that  the  proposed  royalties  would  make 
the  BC  mining  industry  unable  to  com- 
pete with  mining  in  other  parts  of  the 
world. 

Earlier,  the  BC  and  Yukon  Chamber  of 
Mines  said  that  if  the  Act  were  imposed, 
there  would  be  a  loss  of  $587  million  in 
revenue  for  various  sectors  of  the  econ- 
omy. At  the  same  time,  the  chamber  said, 
the  provincial  government  would  gain 
revenues  of  $179  million. 

Now,  my  purpose  in  reading  this  clipping  is 
not  because  I  agree  with  him. 

Mr.  Martel:  Sounds  like  Powis  of  the 
Ontario  Mining  Association. 

Mr.  Givens:  I  have  no  way  of  knowing 
whether  I  can  agree  with  him  or  not,  be- 
cause we  don't  know  what  the  facts  really 
are  on  the  basis  of  what  the  leader  of  the 
NDP  has  said  and  what  this  clipping  says. 
But  I'm  trying  to  indicate  that  there  is  a 
cacophonic  disagreement  on  the  part  of  the 
people  who  talk  about  these  things  because 
they  don't  use  the  same  language. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Well,  where  does  the  member 
stand?  Does  he  think  we  should  be  getting 
more  money  for  our  resources? 

An  hon.  member:  Just  listen  and  you'll 
find  out. 

Mr.  Givens:  Yes,  I  think  we  should  be 
getting  more  revenue.  The  fact  is,  the  mem- 
ber knows,  as  a  speculator  and  an  investor, 
himself,  that  these— 

Mr.  Stokes:  I  sold  mine.  The  member  still 
has  his. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members. 

Mr.  Givens:  —profits  the  NDP  talks  about 
are  not  reflected  in  the  stock  prices  on  the 
stock  markets. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Nobody  said  they  were. 

Mr.  Givens:  The  thing  gets  very  compli- 
cated. There  are  all  kinds  of  reasons  why 
the  stock  market  reacts  the  way  it  does. 

Mr.  H.  Worton  (Wellington  South):  Tell 
us. 

Mr.  Givens:  But  one  must  agree  that  the 
stock  market  in  every  country  in  the  world 
is  a  very  sensitive  barometer  of  the  economic, 
the    psychological    and    emotional    health    of 


that  particularly  country— economically,  be- 
cause it  is  a  reflection  and  a  barometer  of 
what  is  going  on.  So  it  isn't  enough  simply 
to  get  up  and  say  that  these  profits  have 
been  enormous  and  they  forget  about  deple- 
tion allowances,  they  forget  about  deprecia- 
tion and  they  forget  about  a  number  of 
other  things.  So  they  can't  be  that  accurate 
when  on  the  one  hand  they  say  how  wonder- 
ful things  are,  and  on  the  other  hand  the 
president  of  the  association  says  that  mining 
will  be  destroyed  in  British  Columbia. 

Mr.  Martel:  They  don't  want  to  pay  a 
cent  in  taxes.  That's  the  reason! 

Mr.  Givens:  The  member  will  agree  that 
there's  a  difference  of  opinion,  would  he  not? 

Mr.  Stokes:  No. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Since  the  member  asked 
him. 

Mr.  Givens:  And  continuing  on  the  subject 
of  inflation,  as  far  as  the  people  who  have 
fixed  incomes,  as  far  as  our  government  here 
is  concerned,  When  Christmas  comes  around 
there'll  be  another  $50  Christmas  present,  but 
since  we're  heading  into  an  election  year 
there'll  be— 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  We  might  have  an  Easter 
present,  too. 

Mr.  Givens:  Well,  they  can  increase  it  by 
100  per  cent  and  make  it  another  $50,  and 
then  they're  going  to  have  an  income  support 
programme,  maybe,  and  then  there's  going  to 
be  a  proposal  made  for  a  prescription  drug 
plan  for  our  senior  citizens.  This  is  the  way 
we  expect  to  help  the  people  who  are  living 
on  a  fixed  income. 

As  far  as  the  parkway  belt  is  concerned 
I'm  surprised  that  in  the  Throne  Speech  there 
was  nothing  further  said  about  that  because 
the  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs 
( Mr.  White )  has  been  promising  for  a  long 
time,  together  vdth  the  former  deputy  min- 
ister of  that  department,  that  there  would  be 
open  planning.  There  were  supposed  to  be 
hearings.  The  legislation  is  just  about  a  year 
old.  It  was  passed  last  June.  There  hasn't 
been  a  public  hearing  that  I  know  of  with 
respect  to  either  the  parkway  belt  or  the 
Niagara  Escarpment.  Land  has  been  frozen. 

I  feel  very  strongly  about  this.  I'm  opposed 
to  the  whole  concept.  I  believe  that  if  a  gov- 
ernment wants  somethhig  for  public  purposes, 
w'hether  it  is  a  municipal  government  or  a 
provincial  government,  it  should  have  to 
prove  that  it  requires  it  and  it  has  to  go  in 


188 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


and  buy  it  and  not  confiscate  it  and  not  steal 
it.  I  think  this  is  wrong.  I  think  it  is  wrong 
to  zone  land  for  agriculture  when  we  know 
very  well  that  it  isn't  agricultural.  Any  lands 
in  these  areas  that  are  being  farmed  are  being 
farmed  as  holding  operations.  They're  not 
being  farmed  on  an  economic  basis.  They're 
being  farmed  because  people  are  getting  con- 
cessions with  respect  to  municipal  taxes  and 
so  forth. 

I  ha\  e  here  an  evaluation.  What  is  happen- 
ing is  that  in  the  parkway  belt,  for  instance, 
land  has  gone  down  by  about  90  per  cent.  I 
have  here  an  evaluation  by  the  firm  of 
Constam,  Heine  Associates  Ltd.,  which  is  a 
real  estate  appraiser.  I  think  the  firm  has 
done  a  lot  of  work  for  the  government  on 
previous  occasions.  It  has  evaluated  a  piece 
of  land— I'm  just  using  this  as  an  example— 
of  100  acres  and  shown  that  the  value  has 
gone  down.  On  June  3,  1973,  it  was  worth 
$600,000  for  the  100  acres  and  on  Dec.  31, 
1973.  it  was  worth  100,000  acres. 

Mr,  Deacon:  One  hundred  thousand 
dollars. 

Mr.  Givens:  What  did  I  say? 

Mr.  Deacon:  Acres. 

Mr.  Givens:  I'm  sorry;  $100,000  an  acre. 
This  is  happening  all  over  the  place. 

Mr.  Deacon:  One  hundred  thousand  dol- 
lars for  the  100  acres? 

Mr.  Givens:  One  hundred  thousand  dollars 
for  the  100  acres  whidh  means  it's  been  down- 
graded from  $6,000  an  acre  to  $1,000  an 
acre.  This  is  only  one  example.  There  are 
other  examples  of  values  which  have  dropped 
and  one  would  think  this  would  be  a  good 
thing— that  the  price  of  land  for  housing  and 
other  purposes  was  going  down— but  it  isn't 
because  outside  the  parl^ay  belt  the  values 
have  tripled  and  quadrupled.  What  has  the 
government  gained?  What  has  it  accom- 
plished? None  of  this  land  will  be  used  for 
housing.  I  think  it's  confiscatory. 

People  have  died  and  the  estates  pay  suc- 
cession duties  on  the  basis  of  the  land  not 
being  for  agricultural  purposes.  People  have 
given  some  of  the  property  to  their  children 
and  the  Department  of  National  Revenue  has 
revalued  the  properties  on  the  basis  of  not 
being  agricultural  land.  I  don't  know  how 
one  government  can  base  an  evaluation  for 
succession  duties  or  for  gift  tax  on  it  being 
non-agricultural  when  the  provincial  govern- 
ment comes  along  and  says,  "Your  land  shall 
be   agricultural  for  ever  and  a  day."  There 


isn't  even  a  house  or  a  farmyard  or  a  barn- 
yard or  anything  on  the  property  which  would 
enable  anyone  to  use  the  land  for  farming 
purposes. 

This  open  planning  hasn't  taken  place  yet 
and  I  wish  the  Minister  of  Intergovernmental 
Affairs  was  around  to  indicate  when  these 
public  hearings  and  this  participation  is  going 
to  take  place  since  he  talked  about  it  in  the 
legislation.  How  long  is  he  going  to  wait? 

In  some  cases  it's  a  matter  of  life  and 
death  when  the  government  is  going  to  de- 
termine what  the  future  of  these  properties 
is  going  to  be.  It  is  unconscionable.  It  is 
politically  amoral  and  this  is  what  the 
government  is  doing.  I  wouldn't  expect  this 
to  come  from  a  government  which  is  sup- 
posed to  be  a  free  enterprise  party  and 
believes  in  free  enterprise  and  believes  in 
people's  rights  because  I  believe  we're 
living  in  a  democracy. 

What  constitutes  freedom?  The  govern- 
ment takes  away  a  man's  property.  It  takes 
away  what  he's  worked  for  and  I'm  not 
talking  about  the  speculators.  If  the  govern- 
ment worries  about  the  speculator,  tax  him 
with  a  windfall  tax.  Put  it  up  to  75  per 
cent;  in  this  case  I  agree  with  the  leader 
of  the  NDP.  But  there  are  people  to  whom 
these  lands  represent  a  lifetime  of  savings; 
indeed  the  property  goes  back  two  or  three 
generations  and  the  government  gives  them 
a  once-in-a-lifetime  gift  of  $50,000  and  what 
will  that  be  evaluated  on?  Agricultural 
land  or  land  which  was  worth  a  certain 
amount  of  money  because  development  had 
come  up  right  to  one  side  of  the  street 
and  they  happened  to  be  on  the  other  side 
of  the  street? 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  this  is  horribly 
unfair.  This  business  of  playing  Robin  Hood, 
of  stealing  from  those  the  government 
thinks  are  the  rich  to  satisfy  the  poor, 
creates  a  very  terrible  precedent  and  in  no 
other  free  country  in  the  world  is  this  per- 
mitted. In  the  United  States,  in  Britain,  one 
can't  get  away  with  it. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Even  Robin  Hood  went  to 
jail. 

Mr.  Givens:  Under  the  law  of  eminent 
domain  in  the  United  States,  if  the  govern- 
ment wants  the  property,  it  takes  it;  it 
proves  it  needs  it  but  pays  for  it  based  on 
what  other  criteria  it  wants  to  set  up.  There 
are  a  lot  of  definitions  of  market  value. 
They  are  in  the  federal  expropriation  Act 
and  in  the  provincial  Expropriations  Act. 
There  are  definitions   that  realtors  can   give 


MARCH  12,  1974 


189 


yoii,  experts  in  this  particular  field.  Pick 
an>  one  that  you  want.  But  don't  steal 
property  from  people.  I  don't  think  it  is 
fair.  I  don't  think  it  is  conscionable.  If  the 
go\ernment  wants  to  tax  them  for  the  big 
profits  that  they  make,  fine.  It  should  take 
certain  things  into  consideration:  how  long 
the\  liave  held  it,  how  long  they  have  worked 
it  and  how  long  it  has  been  in  the  family 
name. 

The  go\emment  knows  it  can  do  it  be- 
cause it  is  doing  so  with  respect  to  taxation. 
It  is  doing  it  with  respect  to  its  once-in- 
a-lifetime  gift.  I  say  this  is  very  unfair, 
Mr.  Speaker,  and  I  am  very  surprised  that 
the    government   is    going   ahead   with   it. 

Mr.  R.  Cisborn  (Hamilton  East):  We  will 
take  it  under  consideration. 

Mr.  Givens:  They  will  take  it  under 
consideration.  Even  in  British  Columbia 
where  they  passed  similar  legislation. 
Premier  Barrett  has  indicated  that  value  will 
be  paid  to  people  from  whom  lands  are 
taken  or  people  from  wiiom  lands  are 
taken  just  to  sit  there  sterile.  If  the  govern- 
ment really  thinks  that  they  are  agricultural, 
let  it  go  in  and  expropriate  them  for  agri- 
cultural purposes  and  let  people  farm  them. 
But  don't  leave  it  there  and  steal  it.  Then 
the  government  says  it  can't  aflFord  to  pay 
these  people  for  the  land.  What  kind  of  an 
excuse  is  that? 

At  least  when  Robin  Hood  came  driving 
down  the  pike,  one  could  see  him  coming. 
He  had  his  bow  and  arrow.  But  when  the 
proN'incial  govermnent  moves  in  one  can't 
even  see  it  coming.  And  Robin  Hood  con- 
fined his  activities  to  stealing- 
Mr.  Breithaupt:  One  gets  shafted  just  the 
same. 

Mr.  Civens:  —whatever  one  had  on  his 
bod>.  This  is  stealing  what  people  have 
saved  up  for  30,  40,  maybe  50  years.  He 
confined  his  activities  to  Sherwood  Forest. 
This  Robin  Hood  government's  jurisdiction 
stretches  all  over  the  province.  The  park- 
way- belt  and  the  Niagara  Escarpment  are 
onh  two  places.  If  the  government  gets 
av^a>'  with  this  now,  it  can  put  in  a  parkway 
belt  anywhere  in  the  province  that  it  wants. 
I  don't  think  it  will  get  away  with  it  because 
I  think  there  will  be  litigation  in  the 
courts  that  will  go  on  for  many,  many  years. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  They  are  going  to  be 
defeated  too. 

Mr.  Deacon:  The  airport  loading  zone, 
isn't  it? 


Mr.  Lawlor:  They  haven't  even  got  a 
Maid  Marion. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Nixon:  Maid  Margaret? 

Mr.  Givens:  It  is  the  same  thing  with  the 
aiiport.  On  the  question  of  regional  govern- 
ment, we  have  here  a  report,  "The  Mu- 
nicipal Dynamic".  This  was  prepared  for 
the  Ontario  Economic  Council,  which  I  sup- 
pose is  ordered  by  the  government.  This 
particular  tract  was  written  by  a  man  by 
the  name  of  Lionel  D.  Feldman.  The  report 
isn't  very  complimentary  to  the  government. 

The  report  doesn't  say  too  much  of  who 
Mr.  Feldman  is.  At  one  time  he  was  a  mem- 
ber of  the  staff  of  the  Department  of 
Municipal  Affairs  in  Ontario.  He  has  been 
a  research  associate  with  the  bureau  of 
municipal  research  in  Toronto.  He  has 
worked  on  the  staff  of  a  number  of  royal 
commissions.  Recently,  as  a  principal  author 
of  research  monograph  No.  6,  entitled,  "A 
Survey  of  Alternative  Urban  Policies  for 
Urban  Canada:  Problems  and  Prospects," 
he  combined  or  collaborated  with  Harvey 
Lithwick  in  this  report  in  1970.  This  was  the 
report  incidentally  that  convinced  the  Prime 
Minister,  with  whom  I  had  many  arguments, 
about  the  constitutionality  of  the  urban 
question  as  far  as  federal  government  involve- 
ment is  concerned.  The  Prime  Minister  of 
Canada  said  there  would  never  be  a  Ministry 
of  Urban  Affairs  for  Canada  and  there  would 
never  be  a  Minister  or  a  Ministry  of  Housing 
for  Canada,  because,  within  section  92  of 
the  British  North  America  Act,  this  was  com- 
pletely under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  provinces. 
It  was  this  Lithwick  report,  together  with 
the  collaboration  of  Feldman,  which  brought 
this  about.  Mr.  Feldman  was  also  active  as 
a  special  adviser  on  urban  aflFairs  to  the 
government  of  Manitoba,  which  should 
commend  him  to  the  party  on  the  left. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  When? 

Mr.  Givens:  As  part  of  a  study  team  re- 
sponsible for  the  reorganization  of  Winnipeg 
in  1972;  that  was  when.  So  he  is  okay.  All 
right?  This  is  what  he  has  to  say. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  I  just  wanted  to  be  cer- 
tain. 

Mr.  Givens:  He  completely  scoffs  at  what 
the  members  opposite  are  doing  and  what  the 
government  is  doing.  He  takes  a  dim  view  of 
what  the  government  has  done  in  the  regional 
government  field.  I  read  a  report  of  his,  and 
he  is  worth  quoting.  He  says: 


190 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


The  goal  of  the  government  of  the  Prov- 
ince of  Ontario  stated  in  the  1973  budget 
was  to  enhance  the  autonomy  of  munici- 
palities and  broaden  the  scope  for  decision- 
making at  the  local  level.  [But  what  have 
they  accomplished?  He  goes  on  to  say:l  If 
this  is  the  aim,  then  what  is  occurring 
creates  an  autonomy  which  is  virtually 
meaningless.  Few  meaningful  functions  are 
being  left  to  the  local  governments  to  per- 
form unilaterally,  and  therefore  less  remains 
in  substantive  terms  to  be  decided  by  local 
councils.  If  this  prognosis  is  valid,  then  the 
future  is  dim  for  effective  local  govern- 
ment. 

And  so  it  is.  The  government  keeps  talking 
about  local  autonomy  all  the  time.  But  all 
it  has  left  for  the  local  governments  to  do  are 
the  menial  tasks.  They  are  hewers  of  wood, 
drawers  of  water  and  collectors  of  taxes  and 
garbage.  The  government  has  left  them  no 
powers  at  all  hardly  worth  a  dam. 

Mr.  R.  Haggerty  (Welland  South):  Even 
taken  the  garbage  collection  away. 

Mr.  Givens:  He  goes  on  to  make  a  very 
valid  point,  which  I  think  is  important  to  bear 
in  mind.  He  says  on  page  40:  "Efficiency  was 
never  intended  to  be  the  sole  objective  of 
local  government"— if  indeed  the  government 
thinks  they  are  achieving  eflBciency,  but  I 
don't  think  that  they  are,  because  the  costs 
of  local  government  are  going  up  tremend- 
ously. 

He  goes  on  to  say  that  eflSciency  isn't 
enough.  He  says: 

The  underlying  assumption  of  equal  im- 
portance was  that  ordinary  people  should 
associate  with  the  provision  of  local  schools, 
roads,  sewerage,  water,  social  services  and 
so  on,  to  the  extent  that  they  not  only  plan 
these  services,  but  vote  funds  to  provide 
services,  pass  the  contracts,  supervise  con- 
struction, so  the  citizens  may  feel  that  they 
are  really  dealing  with  their  own  services 
and  not  merely  receiving  services  and  pro- 
grammes being  provided  for  them  by  a  sen- 
ior government 

And  this  government  is  emasculating  them 
and  tearing  them  dovm;  it  is  making  it  use- 
less for  anybody  to  run  for  public  office. 

He  goes  on  to  say— and  he  was  quoted  by 
my  leader  the  other  day,  but  I  will  quote  this 
again— "if  this  continues  the  future  of  reor- 
ganized municipalities  is  bleak"— and  I'm  look- 
ing for  the  quotation  that  was  quoted  the 
other  day  to  the  effect  that  the  tasks  they  have 
to   perform   are   so   unimportant  that   hardly 


any  people  are  going  to  be  willing  to  run  for 
public  office  in  the  local  municipalities  any 
more.  That  is  a  fact.  That  is  what  people  are 
saying.  And  this  government  should  concern 
itself  with  What  people  are  saying  in  the  re- 
gional governments  because  this  government 
is  going  to  suffer  from  it: 

As  far  as  the  two-tier  system  is  concerned, 
the  government  is  leaving  nothing  for  the 
lower  tier  to  do.  They  have  no  jurisdiction  at 
all.  It's  all  determined  here,  and  we  can't 
take  in  that  kind  of  centralization.  Quite 
frequently  the  minister  yells  across,  "What 
would  you  do?"  Well,  I'il  tell  him  what  we 
would  do.  I'll  tell  him  what  I  would  do  as 
Minister  of  Urban  Affairs:  I  would  restore 
their  manhood  and  their  power  to  do  what 
they  want  in  the  local  municipalities.  And 
I  wouldn't  fund  all  kinds  of  programmes 
which  this  government  funds  for  their  bene- 
fit, but  which  aren't  for  their  benefit.  The 
only  reason  they  participate— and  this  gov- 
ernment only  tells  them  about  these  pro- 
grammes after  the  event;  it  doesn't  consult 
with  them  in  advance— the  only  reason  they 
participate  is  because  this  government  is 
handing  out  the  dough,  so  they  figure  they 
might  as  well  get  a  piece  of  the  action  whe- 
ther indeed  they  need  that  programme  or  not. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Ruston  (Essex-Kent):  Right  on. 

Mr.  Givens:  And  another  thing  that  we 
would  do:  You  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  this  gov- 
ernment makes  a  big  deal  about  mergers  and 
greater  eflBciency;  it  is  taking  all  these  munic- 
ipalities, welding  them  into  one  and  calling 
them  names  that  they  don't  want  to  be  called, 
wiping  out  names  that  have  become  tradi- 
tional over  many  years. 

!What  the  government  is  also  doing  in  many 
cases  is  decreasing  representation.  The  gov- 
ernment talks  about  participatory  democracy, 
about  considtation,  and  about  local  autonomy 
having  a  part  in  the  daily  lives  of  local 
people,  yet  it  is  ripping  away  all  kinds  of 
representation  from  them.  There  are  areas  in 
this  province  today  that  used  to  be  repre- 
sented by  councils  of  six,  eight,  nine  or  12, 
even  existing  in  Metropolitan  Toronto,  and 
these  people  are  no  longer  represented  by  a 
council  and  have  nobody  to  turn  to  with 
respect  to  their  local  affairs.  This  isn't  right. 

So  while  this  government  is  striving  for  this 
eflBciency  and  while  we  are  having  these 
mergers  and  consolidations,  it  is  cutting  down 
on  the  number  of  representatives.  It  is  taking 
away  the  democratic  rights  of  these  people 
all  over  Ontario  and  giving  them  no  repre- 
sentation at  all.  This  is  wrong. 


MARCH  12,  1974 


191 


lit  is  wrong  to  take  away  a  council  of  about 
a  dozen  from  a  municipality  and  replace  it  by 
one  solitary  alderman  who  in  many  cases  is 
not  even  elected  by  them,  as  in  the  city  of 
Toronto,  where  the  members  of  Metropolitan 
Toronto  council  are  not  elected  by  the  people 
of  Toronto.  Then,  over  and  above  it  all,  the 
government  imposes  a  chairman,  which  is 
such  an  undemocratic  principle  that  I  can't 
imdterstand  why  the  government  keeps  on 
using  it  over  and  over  and  time  and  time 
again. 

While  democracy  works  for  the  members 
of  this  government— the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis) 
has  to  get  elected,  the  cabinet  ministers  have 
to  get  elected  by  some  convoluted  logic,  which 
I've  never  been  able  to  understand,  they  feel 
that  the  man  who  is  chairman  of  Metropolitan 
Toronto  should  be  chosen  by  a  small  group 
of  people  on  that  council  and  not  by  the 
people  he  represents,  although  he  has  all  this 
influence  and  has  a  budget  tiiat  is  larger  than 
the  budgets  of  eight  of  the  provinces  of  this 
country.  The  government  is  doing  this  in  other 
areas,  and  it's  a  wrong  principle. 

(The  people  who  have  this  power  and  this 
control  should  have  to  be  elected.  That's 
what  we  would  do:  we  would  make  them  be 
elected.  We  wouldn't  impose  decisions  on 
the  people  vdth  respect  to  things  that  they 
don't  want  and  don't  need. 

On   the   question   of   transportation- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  On  which  the  hon.  member  is 
an  expert. 

Mr.  Givens:  —this  Throne  Speech  is  re- 
markably devoid  of  any  half-decent  recom- 
mendations with  respect  to  transportation. 
Incidentally,  it  was  such  an  interesting  speech 
that  even  though  the  Lieutenant  Governor 
left  out  three  pages,  because  they  weren't  in- 
cluded in  the  speech,  it  didn't  seem  to  make 
any  difference;  nobody  even  noticed  it.  That's 
how  good  a  Throne  Speech  it  was.  So  when 
I  heard  the  Throne  Speech  being  read  I  said, 
"isn't  that  marvellous  for  northern  Ontario?" 
For  some  reason  I  have  a  sympathetic  feeling 
for  the  people  up  north  because  I  think  they 
have  been  getting— 

Mr.  Stokes:  Sympathetic— right. 

Mr.  Givens:  Sympatico— sympathetic  feeling 
for  the  people  up  north;  because  I  feel  that 
the  people  up  north  have  been  getting  a  raw 
deal  for  a  long  time.  So  when  I  heard  the 
speech  I  said:  "A  whole  new  era  is  dawning 
for  northern  Ontario."  But  it  wasn't  until  I 
read  the  speech  a  second  or  a  third  time  that 
I  realized'  what  it  really  said. 


It  didn't  say  that  a  road  was  going  to  be 
built.  It  said  a  feasibility  and  engineering 
study  vdll  be  undertaken  for  a  road  from 
James  Bay  to  Moosonee.  So  it  ain't  no  road 
yet;  don't  hold  your  breath. 

Then  it  went  on  to  say  that  priority  con- 
sideration will  be  given  to  the  supply  of 
electric  power  to  northern  communities;  a 
power  line  to  Moosonee  will  be  the  first 
project  in  this  undertaldng.  So  don't  throw 
away  your  coal  oil  lamps  or  your  flashhghts 
yet. 

Then  it  went  on  to  say  that  the  northern 
communities  vdll  have  the  opportunity  to 
establish  local  community  councils  and  went 
on  to  say  they  will  have  water  and  roads  and 
other  such  services— and  implementation  of 
this  plan  will  follow  full  consultation  with 
residents  of  communities  who  wish  to  parti- 
cipate. I  suppose  the  full  consultation  will 
be  the  same  kind  of  full  consultation  that  the 
Premier  of  this  goverrmient  had  with  Metro- 
politan Toronto  just  before  he  abandoned  the 
Spadina  Expressway  after  blowing  $100 
milHon.  That  is  the  kind  of  consultation  they 
are  going  to  get. 

Then  the  speech  goes  on  to  say  high 
priority  has  been  given  to  rebuildmg  or 
widening  Highway  17  between  Sault  Ste. 
Marie  and  Sudbury— that  is  high  priority.  And 
also  it  says  that  the  Ontario  government  is 
negotiating  an  agreement  to  participate 
through  an  appropriate  agency  about  the 
Polar  Gas  project.  The  government  is  not 
going  to  have  an  agreement.  It  hasn't  got  an 
agreement;  there  is  no  sign  of  an  agreement— 
but  it  is  going  to  be  negotiating  an  agree- 
ment. 

Then  last  but  not  least,  it  says  studies  will 
be  made  regarding  the  establishment  of  a  port 
facility  in  the  James  Bay  area.  Now,  when  I 
first  heard  this  I  figured:  "Boy,  they  are 
going  to  get  a  port;  how  wonderful.  I  will  be 
able  to  sail  my  boat  up  there."  But  the  gov- 
ernment is  going  to  have  studies  regarding 
the  establishment  of  a  port  in  the  James  Bay 
area.  Well,  so  muc^h  for  the  north.  I  begrudge 
the  north  nothing.  If  the  money  that  was 
saved  on  the  Spadina  Expressway  can  be 
used  to  put  in  Highway  17,  or  the  Moosonee 
road,  more  power  to  them.  But  I  don't  think 
they  are  going  to  get  it. 

Mr.  Deacon:  No,  there  will  be  more 
studies. 

Mr.  Givens:  Only  more  studies.  So,  so 
much  for  the  north. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Nothing  is  too  good  for 
the  north— and  nothing  is  what  they  are 
going  to  get. 


192 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Givens:  Now,  we  have  been  told  over 
and  over  again— 

Mr.  Stokes:  Does  the  member  think  the 
north  should  subsidize  the  TTC  down  here? 

Mr.  Givens:  No.  And  it  won't,  because  the 
TTC  isn't  doing  a  hell  of  a  lot— or  the  prov- 
ince isn't  permitting  it  to.  Dr.  Richard 
Soberman  has  just  brought  in  a  report  in 
which  he  indicates  that  the  Scarborough  Ex- 
pressway in  his  opinion— I  am  paraphrasing; 
I  haven't  had  an  opportunity  to  read  the 
report,  so  I  judge  from  what  I  read  in  the 
newspapers— but  Dr.  Soberman  is  recommend- 
ing that  the  Scarborough  Expressway  be 
abandoned.  And  I  tell  the  members  that  I 
am  not  surprised.  If  there  was  reason  for 
abandoning  the  Spadina  Expressway— which 
was  much  less  painful  to  the  people  in  the 
area  from  a  disruptive  and  inconvenient  stand- 
point than  it  would  be  for  the  people  if  the 
Scarborough  Expressway  should  be  built— if 
there  was  reason  for  abandoning  the  Spadina 
Expressway  then,  a  fortiori,  the  Scarborough 
Expressway— a  fortiori  means  I  am  leading 
with  greater  strength  for  greater  reason— the 
Scarborough  Expressway  should  be  aban- 
doned. 

When  asked  whether  the  Scarborough  Ex- 
pressway should  be  replaced  by  this  Krauss- 
Maffei  scheme— the  government  is  putting  all 
its  eggs  in  one  basket  on  that  one— Dr.  Sober- 
man said  no,  that  he  wants  something  that 
will  work  now  and  not  in  the  future.  When 
he  talks  about  Krauss-Maffei— which  I  will 
come  to  in  just  a  second— he  says  it  is  a 
research  project,  really,  and  not  something 
that  is  viable  to  go  into  because  it  hasn't 
been  in  operation  anywhere.  He  talks  about 
the  project  as  a  matter  for  the  future  and 
probably  it  won't  be  operational  for  about  20 
years. 

Mr.  Deacon:  That  is  a  basket  of  eggs  that 
is  beginning  to  turn  rotten. 

Mr.  Givens:  And  then  he  indicates  that  it 
should  be  LRT.  LRT  is  like  rapid  transit. 
Some  people  call  it  Hght  rail  transportation, 
which  is  a  streetcar  system  which  is  being 
developed  in  the  United  States  and  which  is 
being  used  in  Europe  and  in  many  American 
cities.  They  are  planning  it  right  now  and 
they  are  putting  it  in  operation.  It  is  a  tried 
and  tested  system. 

I  would  have  thought  that  under  the  cir- 
cumstances, since  this  is  having  so  much  suc- 
cess in  other  jurisdictions,  that  at  least  there 
would  be  something  in  the  Throne  Speech 
that  would  indicate  that  the  provincial  gov- 


ernment is  interested  enough  in  studying  this 
particular  issue.  But  it  is  not.  There  is  not  a 
word  in  it  about  light  rapid  transit. 

Dr.  Soberman  has  indicated  that  the  very 
right  of  way  which  was  designated  for  the 
Krauss-Maffei  thing  some  time  off  in  the 
future  should  be  used  for  an  LRT  system, 
which  means  that  as  far  as  he  is  concerned, 
as  an  expert— and  he  must  be  an  expert  or 
else  he  wouldn't  have  been  brought  in  to 
make  this  study  and  make  this  report— as  far 
as  he  is  concerned,  he  is  completely  ridding 
himself  of  any  idea  that  that's  Where  the 
Krauss-Maffei  system  should  work  and  he 
doesn't  think  it's  going  to  work.  And  he  sug- 
gested that  right  of  way  now  be  used  for  this 
light  rapid  transit  system. 

The  Krauss-Maffei  thing  is  being  called  into 
question  all  along  the  line.  People  are  asking 
questions;  they  can't  get  answers.  It's  a  re- 
search project,  it's  not  a  proven  system.  It  is 
nowhere  in  existence,  not  even  in  the  countr)- 
where  it's  manufactured. 

Magnetic  levitation  is  being  used  for  many 
kinds  of  engines  but  not  for  transportation 
anywhere  in  the  world.  The  stations  are  going 
to  be  huge.  They  are  going  to  be  up  in  the 
air.  There  are  going  to  be  staggering  ques- 
tions as  to  how  it  is  going  to  be  interlined 
with  the  subway  system  and  with  the  bus 
system. 

Thev  talk  about  20-passenger  cars.  It  has 
been  figured  out  from  an  engineering  stand- 
point that  these  20-passenger  cars  aren't 
going  to  be  able  to  handle  the  loads  with 
enough  of  a  time  headway  between  them 
to  let  it  operate  as  a  safe  system,  so  there 
are  the  same  serious  loading  limitations  and 
there  are  going  to  be  no  attendants  on  the 
cars.  It's  going  to  have  high  capital  and 
operating  costs.  It's  a  new  and  completely 
unproved  technology  at  the  present  time, 
and  I  would  have  thought  that  the  Throne 
Speech  would  have  taken  into  consideration 
this   new   manifestation— this   LRT   system. 

There  is  a  citizens  transit  committee  which 
has  been  dealing  with  this  at  various  public 
hearings  and  the  government  has  chosen  to 
disregard  this  completely.  I  think  that  is 
absolutely  wrong.  I  think  that  Krauss-Maffei 
may  be  okay.  Maybe  it  will  be  in  operation 
in  about  15  or  20  years,  but  there  is  knoNvn 
technology  which  has  to  be  utilized  for  the 
purpose  of  moving  people  now,  because  the 
Spadina  Expressway,  for  instance,  was  aban- 
doned three  years  ago.  It  will  be  three  years 
on  June  3  of  this  year. 

What  has  taken  its  place?  The  Spadina 
subway  is  going  to  be  built.  I  think  tenders 


MARCH  12,  1974 


193 


have  just  been  approved  for  the  building  of 
the  sewers  in  the  ravine  there  and  that  will 
take  about  six  months.  And  they  indicate  that 
the  subway  will  be  finished  by  1977.  I  think 
there  will  be  grass  growing  dovm  Yonge 
St.  before  that  subway  is  finished  in  1977, 
because  it  has  taken  10  years  to  move  the 
Yonge  St.  subway  from  Eglinton  up  to  Finch 
and  that  hasn't  been  opened  yet. 

That  thing  started  when  I  was  still  at 
city  hall  in  Toronto.  True,  there  was  tunnel- 
ling and  there  may  not  be  tunnelling  in  the 
ravine,  but  by  the  time  that  they  deck  the 
system  in  the  ravine  and  do  what  is  sort  of 
tunnelling  in  reverse,  it  will  probably  take 
10  years  and  you  ain't  going  to  get  that 
subway  finished  for  at  least  10  years,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

So,  what  have  they  done?  What  have  they 
done  to  replace  the  transportation  system 
which  they  abandoned  three  years  ago?  A 
dia-a-bus  system  is  only  an  intermediate  sys- 
tem which  takes  people  from  their  homes 
and  brings  them  to  bus  stops  or  subway 
stations.  But  if  you  don't  have  subway  sta- 
tions or  if  the  subway  stations  are  over- 
loaded, the  dial-a-bus  system  is  just  a  tertiary 
kind  of  support  system.  So  what  has  the 
government  done  to  replace  that  transporta- 
tion system?  Absolutely  nothing.  And  there 
isn't  even  a  word  in  the  Throne  Speech  about 
what  the  government  is  going  to  do. 

Concerning  the  teachers  situation  which 
the  Throne  Speech  alludes  to,  it  looks  like 
we  are  going  to  get  compulsory  arbitration 
whether  we  like  it  or  not.  As  far  as  we  in 
this  party  are  concerned,  the  criterion  of 
what  should  determine  compulsory  arbitra- 
tion is  not  whether  a  calling  or  a  service  or 
a  kind  of  work  is  essential  or  not.  I  don't 
think  that  really  is  a  relevant  point.  As  far 
as  I  am  concerned,  I  think  that  the  criterion 
for  compulsory  arbitration  should  be  the 
kind  of  work  or  service  which  has  to  do 
with  public  safety,  which  has  to  do  with 
health,  which  has  to  do  with  the  matter  of 
life  and  death,  vital  services. 

It  is  not  a  question  of  essentiality.  Garbage 
collection  is  essential.  Transportation  is  essen- 
tial. There  are  some  of  these  things  that  are 
essential  for  which  I  wouldn't  consider  com- 
pulsory arbitration  to  be  the  necessary  option, 
the  necessary  outcome,  the  necessary  remedy. 

But  what  bothers  me  is  this,  and  I  will 
tell  you  quite  frankly,  Mr.  Speaker,  here  we 
have  a  class  of  people,  the  high  school 
teachers  in  this  particular  area— and  this  is  a 
cause  celebre,  it  isn't  only  the  teachers  in 
the  York  county  system,  but  it's  the  teachers 


everywhere;  the  whole  world  is  watching  as 
to  what's  going  to  happen  here— what  bothers 
me  is  this,  that  here  we  have  several  hundred 
teachers  who  obviously  have  the  support  of 
most  other  teachers  throughout  the  countrv 
for  that  matter  who  are  highly  intelligent, 
highly  educated. 

This  isn't  riff-raff.  These  aren't  people  be- 
ing led  by  Communist  radicals  where  you 
think  that  they  are  trying  to  score  political 
points.  These  are  people  who  have  been 
exposed  to  our  kids.  They  realize  the  impor- 
tance of  their  jobs.  Some  of  them  have  verv 
high  degrees.  If  this  government  hasn't  been 
able  to  empathize  with  these  people,  if  this 
government  hasn't  been  able  to  establish  a 
rapport  with  this  class  of  people  in  our 
society,  then  something  is  very,  very  serious- 
ly wrong. 

The  only  way  that  we  can  settle  this 
problem  is  by  the  shotgun  of  compulsory 
arbitration,  because  that  is  what  it  is.  This 
class  of  people  are  not  miners  and  the>-  are 
not  uneducated  people  who  haven't  had  an 
opportunity  to  have  an  education;  these  are 
our  most  highly  qualified  people  in  the 
community,  people  who  have  always  been 
looked  up  to  as  the  people  to  whom  we 
would  entrust  the  minds  and  the  souls  of  our 
children.  These  are  the  people  that  the 
government  is  gunning  under  with  compul- 
sory arbitration  and  I  say  that  it  is  \er\',  very, 
very  sad.  Something  is  wrong  when  we  have 
to  invoke  this  solution,  which  we  will  prob- 
ably do  within  the  next  day  or  two.  This 
party  is  against  it.  We  cannot  support  com- 
pulsory arbitration,  because  we  think  that 
there's  another  remedy  and  we  will  come  to 
that  at  the  proper  time  when  the  debate 
takes  place. 

Lastly,  I  want  to  deal  with  the  question 
of  solid  waste  management.  The  Throne 
Speech  says: 

A    permanent    advisory    committee     on 
solid  waste  management  will  be  established 
in    order    to    achieve    closer    consultation 
with  municipal  governments,  environmental 
groups    and    industry,    whose    co-operation 
is    essential    to    the    solution    of   problems 
created  by  increasing  waste  of  energy  and 
material    resources    and   the   diflBculties    of 
waste  disposal. 
This  means  another  study.  I  don't  know  what 
we    need    another    study    for    in    this    field, 
really.  You  know,  there's  a  lot  of  very  mud- 
dled   thinking    going    on    on    this    subject. 
Toronto  has  a  garbage  problem.  It  goes  into 
another  area  and  wants  to  dump  it.  "Don't 
dump    your    garbage    here.    No    way.    Don't 
dump  it  here."  Well,  what  shall  we  do  with 


194 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


it?  "Burn  it,  incinerate  it."  If  we  want  to 
build  an  incinerator  in  town,  the  people  in 
the  area  don't  want  it  where  we  want  to 
locate  it.  "Don't  build  a  sewage  disposal 
plant. 

These  people  have  no  objection— and  this 
is  universal,  it  involves  everybody—  they 
ha\'e  no  objection  to  making  garbage.  They 
have  no  objection  to  flushing  a  toilet  and 
creating  waste.  It's  a  very  unpleasant  subject 
but  we  have  got  to  face  up  to  it  and  talk 
about  it.  They  are  all  waste  makers  and  all 
litterers  and  they  are  all  garbage  makers,  but 
nobody  comes  up  with  a  solution  as  to  how 
we  are  going  to  dispose  of  this  stufiF. 

So  we  are  the  victims  of  progress,  because 
years  ago  when  garbage  was  collected  on  the 
streets  of  Toronto,  we  had  a  packer  truck 
that  came  down  the  street  and  we  took  the 
cartons  out  and  flattened  them  out  and  shor- 
ed up  the  sides  of  the  truck.  Then  when  they 
took  the  stuff  to  the  dump,  they  could  separ- 
ate the  paper  from  the  garbage  and  so  on. 
The  flush  toilet  was  supposed  to  be  great 
progress.  It  is  one  of  the  worst  things  that 
has  ever  happened  to  civilized  society  to  date 
and  that's  a  fact.  This  is  the  problem  today, 
and  of  course  the  cigarette  smoker  is  the 
greatest  polluter  of  all. 

I  am  the  vice-president  of  a  company 
called  Atlantic  Packaging  Co.  We  recycle 
paper,  kraft  paper.  In  our  mill  in  Scarbor- 
ough, at  111  Progress,  we  manufacture  220 
tons  of  paper  a  day  for  corrugated  cases  and 
boxes.  We  manufacture  other  things  as  well 
but  this  is  our  prime  concern.  The  only  way 
we  can  manufacture  this  product  is  by  col- 
lecting waste  corrugated  for  the  purpose  of 
making  the  kind  of  paper  that  is  required  for 
corrugated  products.  That's  220  tons  a  day. 
That's  a  lot  of  paper. 

We  have  tapped  just  about  every  source 
of  paper  practically,  in  this  country  within 
transportation  distance  of  our  plant.  We  get 
the  stuff  from  as  far  as  1,500  miles  away 
from  here  to  the  south.  So  we've  tapped  the 
chain  stores,  the  department  stores  and  all 
people  who  generate  this  kind  of  waste  paper. 

I  have  gone  to  the  municipalities  in  this 
area.  I  won't  designate  them;  I  won't  name 
them.  Nobody  wants  to  move.  Nobody  wants 
to  do  anything  about  segregating  the  paper 
from  the  garbage.  Paper  represents  and  con- 
stitutes 40  per  cent  of  garbage  collection 
today.  We  have  gone  to  these  people,  the 
commissioners  of  street  cleaning,  and  we've 
said  to  them,  "Segregate  this.** 

The  prices  vary  from  $20  to  $35  a  ton  and 
we've  been  prepared  to  pay  that  for  paper 
delivered  at  our  plant,  which  is  a  fair  mar- 


ket price.  This  is  not  speculating  in  waste 
paper  because  we  require  this  amount  of 
paper  on  a  day-to-day  basis,  seven  days  a 
week,  365  days  a  year.  Members  should  hear 
the  excuses  they've  given  us:  The  garbage 
gets  dumped  in  the  packer  truck  and  that 
hydraulic  press  comes  in  and  just  congeals 
it  all;  the  members  of  the  union  wouldn't 
be  prepared  to  go  out  on  the  dump  and 
separate  and  segregate  this  stuff. 

They'd  rather  burn  it  and  all  the  stuff  is 
wasted.  Nobody  lets  us  dump  it  and  nobody 
lets  us  burn  it. 

We  said  to  them,  "All  right,  pass  bylaws 
which  will  require  your  people  to  segregate 
this  stuff  at  the  source,  so  they  come  up  with 
their  newspapers  in  one  bundle  and  their  cor- 
rugated in  another  bundle  and  so  on."  We've 
got  to  come  to  that  because  nobody's  letting 
us  dump  it  and  nobody's  letting  us  bum  it. 
And  they  have  51  excuses  as  to  why  that 
can't  be  done,  such  as,  "We  can't  subject 
people  to  onerous  bylaws."  There  are  some 
municipalities  which  have  these  bylaws  now 
but  refuse  to  enforce  them  because  they  feel 
that  they  will  antagonize  the  people  who  vote 
for  the  politicians. 

What  is  the  use  of  indicating  another  study 
on  this  subject  when  there  are  plants  today 
which  are  doing  this  kind  of  work,  like  our 
plant,  with  respect  to  paper?  There  are  others 
with  respect  to  metals  and  glass  and  so  on. 
They  are  just  looking  for  this  stuff  and  no- 
body wants  to  take  the  time  or  trouble  to 
make  it  available  to  them. 

We  can  take  all  this  paper  off  anybody's 
hands.  We're  in  production  now;  we've  been 
in  production  for  several  years.  What  would 
be  wrong  with  indicating  to  these  munici- 
palities that  the  people  have  to  segregate  this 
stuff,  this  garbage,  right  at  the  source  so  that 
we  can  make  use  of  it?  And  for  this  people 
will  pay.  We're  only  one  company  of  many. 

We  hailed  with  great  hullabaloo  the  other 
day  when  a  minister  on  behalf  of  Anglo  an- 
nounced a  sawmill  and  a  pulp  and  paper  plant 
being  erected  somewhere  where  they're  going 
to  cut  down  trees  and  make  pulp  and  paper. 
Do  members  know  that  for  every  ton  of  paper 
we  use  on  a  recycling  basis,  we  avoid  cutting 
down  17  trees  somewhere  in  a  forest  in  north- 
em  Ontario,  where  aforestation  and  reforesta- 
tion have  to  take  place?  This  is  a  great  con- 
servation measure. 

What  does  the  government  have  to  study 
in  order  to  decide  that  this  is  a  good  thing 
and  to  implement  it  and  enforce  it?  We're 
in  operation  now  and,  as  1  say,  we're  only 
one  plant  of  many  which  recycle  materials 


MARCH  12,  1974 


195 


and  are  recycling  them  today.  This  isn't  a 
plan  for  the  future  or  a  programme  for  20 
years  from  now.  This  is  in  existence  now. 

The  provincial  government  seems  to  refuse 
to  come  to  grips  with  this.  It  would  rather 
deal  with  hostile  people  who  don't  want  gar- 
bage dumped  in  their  localities;  with  hostile 
people  who  refuse  to  have  incinerators  and 
sewage  disposal  plants  erected  in  their  various 
municipalities.  This  is  an  anti-growth  psy- 
chosis; I'm  all  right,  Jack,  but  don't  come  in 
here.  We  don't  want  any  changes  and  don't 
pollute  and  don't  do  this  and  don't  do  that. 
Yet  these  are  the  very  people  who  are  doing 
the  polluting  and  don't  come  up  with  any 
solution  as  to  how  these  things  should  be 
handled. 

So  here's  another  study.  I  say  that  this 
Throne  Speech  could  have  gone  a  lot  further 
in  indicating  to  the  people  of  Ontario  what 
should  be  done  and  what  has  to  be  done 
vAth  respect  to  recycling  and  with  respect  to 
handling  the  problem  of  waste  management. 

About  the  only  thing  in  the  Throne  Speech 
I  do  agree  with  and  which,  apparently,  some 
members  of  the  Conservative  government 
don't  agree  with,  is  the  enforcement  of  the 
use  of  seatbelts.  I  think  enforcement  of  the 
use  of  seatbelts  is  a  good  idea.  I  don't  think 
the  probl'em  of  enforcement  will  be  that  great. 
There  will  be  a  lot  of  people  who  won't 
obey  the  law,  but  since  when  is  this  a  rea- 
son for  not  passing  a  law?  People  who  com- 
mit murder,  of  course,  don't  obey  the  criminal 
law.  There  are  a  lot  of  people  who  don't 
obey  the  laws  in  the  Criminal  Code,  but  yet 
we  have  the  Criminal  Code  because  society 
has  to  be  protected. 

The  real  sanction  which  will  enforce  the 
law  of  having  to  clip  on  your  seatbelt,  Mr. 
Speaker,  is  the  civil  action  sanction.  If  you 
find  that  you're,  heaven  forbid,  in  an  accident, 
and  you  haven't  had  your  seat  belt  on,  and 
you're  going  to  be  involved  in  contributory 
negligence  because  you  didn't  have  your  seat- 
belt  on,  and  that  your  award  will  go  down 
by  50  per  cent  or  80  per  cent  or,  in  turn, 
that  the  award  to  the  plaintiff  who  sues  you 
is  going  to  go  up  tremendously  because  you 
didn't  have  your  seatbelt  on,  I  think  you'll 
find  a  lot  of  people  are  going  to  abide  by  the 
law. 

Because  once  you  put  it  in  as  a  law,  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  custom  in  our  community  and 
our  society  is  that  people  will  obey  the  law. 
If  they  don't  obey  the  law  they  run  the  risk 
of  this  very  serious  civil  sanction  and  a  civil 
case  if  they  get  into  an  accident,  and  that's 
rough.  If  you  don't  get  into  an  accident  then 


it  doesn't  matter  whether  or  not  you  buckle 
on  your  seatbelt,  but  at  a  critical  time,  when 
this  becomes  a  factor  in  a  serious  matter  such 
as  an  accident,  it  will  be  very,  very  important 
as  a  question  of  fact  in  any  given  trial,  or  in 
the  settlement  of  a  case,  as  to  whether  you 
hal  your  seatbelt  on  or  not.  I  think  that 
consequently  this  will  cause  people  to  obey 
the  seatbelt  law. 

That,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  about  the  size  of  it. 
I  hope  we  will  all  be  here  next  year  when  we 
will  again  indulge  in  this  ritual  and  I'm  glad 
to  see  how  the  chamber  filled  up  from  the 
time  that  I  started. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  hon.  member  for  Nickel 
Belt. 

Mr.  F.  Laughren  (Nickel  Belt):  Mr. 
Speaker,  it's  good  to  see  you  back,  looking 
well,  sitting  on  the  Throne  and  ruling  in  your 
customarily  fair  way.  As  I  listened  to  the 
Throne  Speech  as  read  by  His  Honour  I 
couldn't  help  but  think  that  we  were  listen- 
ing to  a  typical  mid-term  Throne  Speech 
which,  in  a  rather  somewhat  uniquely  vague 
way,  indicates  the  social  and  economic  direc- 
tion that  tile  government  intends  to  take  in 
the  next  year  and,  perhaps,  the  next  two 
years. 

There  was  nothing  in  the  speech  that  was 
terribly  unpalatable  to  any  groups  in  our 
society.  There  were  no  announcements  of 
new  regional  governments  in  the  province 
that  would  upset  people  in  their  community. 
I  was  just  projecting  ahead  to  next  year 
and  I  thought,  "My  goodness,  can  you  hear 
the  trumpets  blaring  as  the  announcements 
are  made  from  the  Throne  in  an  election 
year?" 

But  I  can  assure  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
next  year  the  people  across  this  province 
are  going  to  say:  "No,  not  this  time.  An 
election  year  of  a  platter  full  of  promises 
will  not  make  up  for  the  by  then  30-plus 
years  of  Conservative  government  neglect  in 
Ontario."  This  is  particularly  true  in  northern 
Ontario.  I  can  imagine  that  the  polls  in  the 
province  will  reflect  that  next  year  and  then 
we'll  witness  the  Conservatives  pulling  the 
plug  on  the  advertising  campaigns  and 
we'll  have  another  American  style  propa- 
ganda campaign  across  the  province. 

But  I  should  get  back  to  this  speech.  I 
should  mention  too,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  those 
who  know  me  well  know  I've  never  been 
a  very  strong  royalist,  but  I  must  say  that 
given  the  ofiBce  of  Lieutenant  Governor,  that 
His  Honour,  Mr.  Macdonald,  filled  the  bill 
admirably   and   I    could    only   hope    that   in 


196 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


the  years  to  come  the  government  in  Ottawa, 
perchance  in  15  or  20  years,  will  appoint  a 
Conservative  as  Lieutenant  Governor  for 
Ontario. 

I  suppose  we  all  think  of  people  that  would 
fill  the  bill  among  those  people  we  know. 
The  first  member  that  came  to  mind  to  me 
when  I  was  thinking  of  a  Conservative 
Lieutenant  Governor  for  the  Province  of 
Ontario— I'm  thinking  now  15  years  ahead 
—would  be,  of  course,  none  other  than  the 
member  for  Timiskaming  (Mr.   Havrot). 

Can't  you  just  picture  it  now?  When  the 
call  to  serve  came  he  would  shut  down  his 
hotdog  stand  on  the  top  of  Maple  Mountain. 
He'd  fight  through  the  blizzards  at  the  top 
and  the  black  flies  at  the  bottom.  He'd 
jump  on  the  monorail  express  to  Toronto  and 
he  would  come  down  here  to  serve  out  his 
term. 

I  think  most  of  us  would  support  the  mem- 
ber for  Timiskaming  if  he  was  to  fulfil  that 
role.  I  am  sure  the  members  of  his  con- 
stituency would  anyway. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  He  would  probably  bring 
the  black  flies  with  him. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  was 
nothing  in  the  Throne  Speech  that  would 
make  the  people  of  Ontario  excited  about 
what  they  were  going  to  witness  for  the 
next  year.  There  were  no  really  new  exciting 
programmes.  As  the  member  for  York- 
Forest  Hill  (Mr.  Givens)  indicated,  it  men- 
tioned all  sorts  of  studies  and  all  sorts  of 
indications  of  priority  ratings;  but  it  certainly 
didn't  go  beyond  that,  unless,  of  course,  you 
consider  mandatory  seatbelts  as  being  excit- 
ing. I  understand  that  the  Parliamentary 
assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Transportation 
and  Communications  doesn't  even  consider 
that  such  an  exciting  addition  to  our  legis- 
lation. 

Let  it  never  be  said  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the 
New  Democrats  just  criticize  without  offer- 
ing alternatives,  because  I  certainly  intend 
this  afternoon  to  offer  some  alternatives  to 
the  government  as  to  what  should  have  been 
in  that  Throne  Speech.  For  example,  there 
should  certainly  have  been  in  that  Throne 
Speech  a  commitment  to  establish  public 
auto  insurance  in  the  Province  of  Ontario.  It 
is  inevitable  in  this  jurisdiction,  as  it  is 
going  to  be  in  other  jurisdictions,  that  we 
will  have  public  automobile  insurance. 
Either  the  Conservatives  will  implement  it  or 
we  will  implement  it. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  They  never  will. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Speaker,  you  would 
think  that  the  Conservatives,  having  a  fairly 


good   instinct   for    survival,    would    see   that 
and  would  implement  it. 

Also  the  entire  question  of  the  ownership 
of  our  resources  is  becoming  a  very  debatable 
subject  among  a  growing  number  of  people, 
not  just  in  this  province,  but  all  across  the 
country.  A  more  comprehensive  form  of 
social  insurance  that  would  entirely  replace 
the  Workmen's  Compensation  Board  is  some- 
thing that  those  people  who  understand  so- 
cial insurance  are  saying  has  no  equal.  Those 
people  who  are  familiar  with  the  Wode- 
house  report  in  New  Zealand  and  have  read 
its  contents  will  tell  you  that  it's  much 
superior    to    that    of    the    private    sector. 

The  Throne  Speech  should  have  offered 
some  alternatives  in  the  supply  of  land  for 
residential  purposes.  I  suppose  that  the 
government  is  in  a  spot  and  that  it  is  clearly 
locked  into  commitments  to  the  resource  cor- 
porations, to  the  insurance  industry  and  to 
the  land  speculators  and  developers  across 
this  province.  So  nothing  is  going  to  be  done 
about  the  rapidly  rising  price  of  raw  land  or 
serviced  land. 

We  have  in  this  province,  Mr.  Speaker,  a 
milieu  in  which  the  government  moves  with- 
in ever-narrowing  parameters  because  its 
commitments  are  being  made  to  fewer  and 
fewer  people  in  this  province,  and  they  are 
not  for  the  benefit  of  the  majority  of  people 
in  the  province.  While  there  are  all  sorts  of 
reasons  for  that,  one  need  only  examine  some 
of  the  individual  members  of  the  Conserva- 
tive Party  to  know  that. 

Those  of  us  who  represent  northern  ridings 
listened  to  the  Throne  Speech,  read  it  over 
after  the  speech  and  then  read  it  over  again. 
Then  the  next  day  we  were  dumbfounded  to 
read  in  the  media  all  that  was  being  done 
for  northern  Ontario— major  concessions  for 
northern  Ontario.  The  member  for  York- 
Forest  Hill  said  it  as  well  as  it  could  be  said: 
What  are  those  concessions  for  northern 
Ontario?  Another  study?  Is  that  a  major 
concession?  Another  priority  rating  for  a 
project  in  northern  Ontario?  That  surely  is 
not  a  major  concession.  I  must  say  that  con- 
spicuous by  its  absence  was  any  concession 
to  the  member  for  Timiskaming  and  his  pet 
project,  the  Maple  Mountain  project. 

I  really  think,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  there 
could  be  a  major  split  developing  in  the 
Conservative  Party  in  this  province.  I  can 
see  the  split  now  between  Ontario's  junior 
achiever,  the  Ministry  of  Industry  and  Tour- 
ism (Mr.  Bennett),  and  the  north's  under- 
achiever,  the  member  for  Timiskaming,  over 
Maple  Mountain.  There  are  more  and  more 


MARCH  12,  1974 


197 


people  coming  down  and  saying  that  the 
development  of  Maple  Mountain  is  not  the 
best  kind  of  development  for  northern  On- 
tario. 

I  knovi  when  I  make  a  statement  like  that 
there  are  people  going  to  say  that  there  is 
somebody  who  is  against  tourism.  That's  not 
true.  I  wish  the  tourist  industry  well.  But 
there  are  many  unanswered  questions  about 
Maple  Moimtain,  including  the  environmental 
concerns  and  the  claims  by  the  native  peo- 
ples for  Maple  Mountain.  I  feel  that  if  public 
money  is  going  to  be  channelled  into  enter- 
prises in  northern  Ontario  it  shouldn't  be 
channelled  into  an  enterprise  such  as  Maple 
Mountain.  It  should  go  into  enterprises  which 
will  provide  good  employment  for  the  area, 
which  will  employ  local  people  and  employ 
them  at  good  wages.  I  don't  believe  that 
Maple  Mountain  is  the  kind  of  project  which 
is  going  to  add  to  the  industrial  development 
of  northern  Ontario, 

I  wouldn't  do  to  the  tourist  industry  what 
I  have  witnessed  this  government  do  to  the 
tourist  industry.  What  I  have  seen  this  gov- 
ernment do,  through  its  Ministry  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications,  to  the  little 
town  of  Gogama  about  80  or  100  miles  from 
Sudbury,  I  wouldn't  do  and  nobody  in  this 
party  would  do.  That  government  over  there, 
with  its  so-called  interest  in  tourism,  isolated 
the  town  by  building  a  road  two  miles  from 
the  town,  by-passing  it  completely,  and  issued 
a  lease  to  Imperial  Oil— who  else?— for  a 
service  centre  at  the  corner.  Now  there  is  no 
need  for  anyone  travelling  on  Highway  144 
between  Sudbury  and  Timmins  to  go  into 
the  town  of  Gogama,  none  whatsoever.  That's 
some  commitment  to  tourism  in  northern 
Ontario  and  I  hope  the  NOTO  rooters  will 
take  note  of  that. 

Mr.  Martel:  Good  luck  to  them. 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  announcement  in  the 
Throne  Speech  that  Highway  17  was  going 
to  be  widened  and  improved  between  Sud- 
bur\'  and  Saulte  Ste.  Marie  is  an  interesting 
statement.  I  don't  know,  maybe  the  member 
for  Algoma  (Mr.  Gilbertson)  would  know 
more  about  this,  but  why  did  it  not  say 
four  lanes?  Does  that  not  leave  the  member 
wondering  just  what  the  government  is  up 
to  when  it  says  there  are  going  to  be  im- 
provements to  and  widening  of  the  highway 
between  Sudbury  and  Sault  Ste.  Marie? 
We've  known  that  for  10  years.  It  has  already 
started  from  each  end  so  what  kind  of  an 
announcement  is  that  to  excite  people  in 
northern  Ontario? 


Mr.  J.  A.  Taylor  (Prince  Edward-Lennox): 
Did  the  member  want  the  specifications  in 
the  Throne  Speech? 

Mr.  Martel:  Sure. 

Mr.  Laughren:  As  far  as  concerns  the  com- 
mitment to  improve  telecommunications  in 
the  remote  communities  in  northern  Ontario 
that  is  not  something  this  government  should 
be  bragging  about  because  it  is  an  embar- 
rassment the  way  it  is  now.  Bringing  in  some 
kind  of  communications  into  remote  com- 
munities surely  should  have  been  done  years 
and  years  ago.  I  can  name  communities  now 
where  there  are  no  telephones;  where  the 
hydro  supply  costs  three  times  the  rate  that 
Ontario  Hydro  charges  people  in  other  com- 
munities. That's  some  commitment  the  gov- 
ernment just  made. 

Mr.  B.  Gilbertson  (Algoma):  The  member 
will  agree  it  needs  improvement,  won't  he? 

Mr.  Laughren:  At  the  same  time,  the 
people  in  these  remote  communities  pay  the 
same  seven  per  cent  sales  tax.  What  do  they 
get  in  return?  Certainly  not  roads.  They  pay 
the  same  Medicare  premiums  as  the  rest  of 
us.  They  have  no  medical  services  whatso- 
ever—not even  a  nurse-practitioner,  not  even 
an  emergency  vehicle— but  they  pay  the  same 
premiums.  They  pay  the  same  income  tax 
and  it  takes  some  gall  to  stand  up,  as  a 
government,  and  brag  about  improving  serv- 
ices in  those  communities. 

Mr.  Stokes:  They  have  to  go  100  miles  to 
get  them. 

Mr.  Laughren:  I  remember,  Mr.  Speaker, 

that  the  present  Minister  of  Energy  (Mr.  Mc- 
Keough)  stood  up  two  years  ago  and  indicated 
that  he  understood  the  problems  in  the  un- 
organized communities  in  northern  Ontario; 
he  was  then  the  Minister  of  Treasury  and 
Economics,  But  to  this  day  nothing  has  been 
done  for  the  unorganized  communities  in 
northern  Ontario  except  for  one  statement 
in  the  Throne  Speech  that  the  government 
was  going  to  recognize  community  organiza- 
tions or  councils  to  funnel  grants  through. 
There  was  no  mention  of  the  grants  or  the 
funding  of  those  actual  organizations  or 
community  councils  to  help  them  get  off 
the  ground. 

There  are  community  councils  all  across 
northern  Ontario  in  these  unorganized  com- 
munities. The  response  by  the  Minister  of 
Health  to  demands  from  small  communities 
to  send  in  some  kind  of  medical  service  has 
been  anything  but  enthusiastic.  We  have  be- 


198 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


sieged  the  minister  with  letters  to  put,  for 
heaven's  sake,  a  nurse  practitioner  or  an 
emergency  vehicle  in  these  communities  be- 
cause it  is  not  right  to  have  communities  iso- 
lated perhaps  by  100  miles  or  200  miles, 
with  no  access  to  any  kind  of  medical  service 
wh;)tsoever.  The  response  has  been  negligible 
from  the  ministry. 

People  who  live  in  these  small  unorganized 
communities  in  the  north  do  so  for  a  variety 
of  social  and  economic  reasons.  I  think  that 
one  could  generalize  and  say  they  tend  to 
be  very  self-reliant,  very  patient  people,  not 
ove^^ly  demanding  of  the  government.  In 
other  words  these  people  don't  really  expect 
to  see  a  return  on  their  tax  dollars  from  the 
Science  Centre  in  Toronto,  from  the  art  gal- 
leries, from  the  museum,  from  the  express- 
ways down  here,  from  international  trade 
missions.  Those  people  don't  expect  to  get  a 
return  on  their  tax  dollars  to  build  those 
things. 

But  on  the  other  hand,  they  are  not  stupid 
either.  And  as  more  and  more  New  Democrats 
get  elected  in  northern  Ontario,  they  are  com- 
ing to  realize  that  they  have  a  right  to  de- 
mand a  return  for  those  things  they  are  not 
getting— the  basic  amenities  of  life. 

As  taxpayers  they  can  see  that  their  taxes 
are  going  to  service  others.  They  can  see  as 
well  that  while  communities  in  southern  On- 
tario debate  the  merits  of  a  billion-dollar 
transit  system,  they  go  without  drinking 
water,  they  go  without  any  recreational  fa- 
cilities at  all,  they  go  without  inadequate 
roads,  they  have  inadequate  communication 
systems,  and  they  know  that  is  not  right. 

Surely,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  no  place  in 
this  province  for  a  double  set  of  standards 
like  that— one  set  for  the  unorganized  com- 
munities in  the  north,  and  another  set  of 
standards  for  the  more  populated  centres; 
some  of  those  populated  centres  are  in  north- 
em  Ontario,  as  well. 

There  really  must  be  some  members  of  the 
government  who  seethe  with  anger  inside 
when  they  alternate  between  Toronto  and 
their  ridings  and  see  these  two  standards;  see 
this  double  standard  in  effect.  I  don't  know 
how  they  can  accept  this,  but  I  suppose  if 
they  really  wanted  to  change  things  they 
wouldn't  be  members  of  the  government;  they 
would  be  in  opposition  trying  to  change  them, 
rather  than  keeping  them  as  they  are. 

If  the  government  contfnues  with  its 
present  level  of  non-intervention  in  these 
unorganized  communities,  a  couple  of  things 
are    going    to    result.    They    are    going    to 


continue  to  have  an  inadequate  level  in 
supply  of  and  standards  for  housing.  We 
are  going  to  continue  to  have  money  from 
the  Social  Development  policy  field  being 
poured  into  these  commmnities  with  no 
measurable  results  whatsoever  because  the 
government  is  not  changing  the  environ- 
ment in  those  communities  at  all.  It  is  sup- 
porting people  who  are  living  on  social 
assistance  but  it  is  not  changing  the  con- 
ditions under  which  they  live;  and  that's 
not  changing  anything.  The  government  is, 
perpetuating  the  cycle  of  poverty  that  exists 
in  those  communities. 

I  am  glad  the  Provincial  Secretary  for 
Social  Development  (Mrs.  Birch)  is  in  the 
Legislature  this  afternoon,  because  I  believe 
there  is  about  $39  million  or  $40  million 
available  to  the  Province  of  Ontario  under 
the  federal  capital  projects  fund.  I  believe 
that  money  is  available  only  from  April  1, 
1974  until  May  31,  1975.  I  think  it  is  in 
the  neighbourhood  of  between  about  $35 
million  to  $40  million  that  is  available  from 
the  federal  govermnent  to  the  province  to  use 
for  provincial  projects.  I  am  not  talking 
about  municipal  projects  now;  these  are 
provincial  projects.  That  money  is  available 
to  the  Province  of  Ontario  and  that  is  what 
should  be  used. 

Any  money  put  into  those  communities; 
should  be  done  so  in  a  very  calculated 
way.  What  is  required  is  something  that  is 
very  similar  to  the  New  Democratic  Party's; 
municipal  foundation  plan,  where  one  estab- 
lishes a  minimum  level  of  services  to  all 
communities  and  then  provides  it.  That  is 
where  that  $30  million  or  so  that  is  avail- 
able from  the  federal  government  could  be 
used. 

Mr.  Martel:  Put  it  in  Cornwall. 

Mr.  Laughren:  These  are  some  of  the 
things  that  should  be  a  requirement  for  every 
community  if  one  regards  a  community  as 
being  a  viable  community  in  which  people 
can  continue  to  live;  these  are  the  things 
that  should  be  there.  There  should  be  some 
form  of  community  complex  that  would 
allow  people  to  have  some  form  of  recrea- 
tion facility.  In  some  cases,  maybe  a  com- 
munity steam  bath- 
Mr.  Stokes:  Water  or  sewers. 

Mr.  Laughren:  There  must  be  a  supply 
of  energy  in  every  community.  Now,  if 
you  can't  bring  in  Ontario  Hydro,  then 
provide  a  Delco  unit,  but  for  heaven's 
sakes  not   a  Delco  unit  at   three  times   the 


MARCH  12,  1974 


199 


rate  of  Ontario  Hydro  for  energy  supply. 
That  is  what  is  happening  today. 

There  should  be  some  form  of  emergency 
transportation.  There  are  communities  with 
absolutely  no  form  of  emergency  transporta- 
tion at  all.  There  should  be  some  even  if  it 
is  a  Natural  Resources  station  wagon  that 
can  be  arranged  as  an  ambulance  to  take 
somebody  100  miles  to  the  nearest  doctor 
or  the  nearest  hospital;  or  an  arrangement 
with  the  charter  air  service  to  fly  into  a 
community  and  take  out  somebody  who  is 
sick.  These  arrangements  have  to  be  made. 
It  is  ridiculous  that  in  1974  these  com- 
munities are  without  these  services. 

Clean  water.  There  are  communities  in 
northern  Ontario  surrounded  throughout  a 
vast  acreage  with  clear,  unpolluted  water, 
yet  in  those  tiny  communities  the  water 
table  is  polluted  primarily  because  of  the 
nature  of  their  septic  systems.  That's  got 
to  be  changed. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Two  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand  lakes  and  not  a  drop  to  drink! 

Mr.  Laughren:  They  have  got  to  have  a 
good  supply  of  drinking  water  and  that  can 
be  done  through  a  community  water  supply, 
with  either  a  lagoon  system  to  get  rid  of 
the  sewage  or  perhaps  a  holding  tank. 

There  has  got  to  be  fire  protection  and 
that  would  include  making  sure  that  there 
is  a  fire  extinguisher  in  homes  and  so  forth. 
But  there  is  no  fire  protection  in  a  lot  of 
these  communities  and  to  this  day  there  is 
not  a  single  penny  of  provincial  money 
available  for  fire  protection  in  unorganized 
communities.  I  could  take  members  to  com- 
munity after  community  where  they  have 
been  writing  letters  to  the  fire  marshal's 
office  and  saying,  "How  about  some  money 
to  help  us  buy  an  old  fire  truck?" 

Mr.  Martel:  No  way. 

Mr.  Laughren:  And  if  they  do  get  a 
fire  truck,  such  as  one  community  I  know 
of,  they  got  a  fire  truck  by  running  a  lot 
of  raffles,  they  got  an  old  fire  truck  and 
they  had  no  place  to  put  it.  So  they  fill  it 
up  with  water  and  it  freezes.  Now  what  could 
be  more  ridiculous  in  1974?  The  government 
must  supply  these  basics. 

Another  thing  is  suitable  garbage  disposal. 
Members  should  see  some  of  the  dumps 
outside  these  towns  where  the  people  have 
dumped  their  garbage.  It's  a  disgrace. 

If  they  can't  supply  a  doctor  in  these 
communities  and  that's  understandable  in 
a  community  of  200  people,  500,  800,  then 


they  should  at  least  supply  a  nurse  prac- 
titioner. The  efforts  of  the  Health  Ministry 
in  this  regard  have  been  minimal.  They  just 
have  not  treated  the  matter  seriously.  I  can 
show  the  House  letters  —  I  should  have 
brought  them  in  and  read  them  into  the 
record-from  the  Minister  of  Health  offering 
the  platitudes  and  agreeing  that  there  cer- 
tainly should  be  something  done  and  that  he 
has  authorized  the  local  health  unit  to  try 
and  find  somebody,  but  nothing  ever  hap- 
pens. Because  they  are  not  serious  about  it. 

That  list  I've  just  given  may  seem  like  a 
long  list.  One  might  think  of  the  expense  of 
bringing  all  those  services  into  those  com- 
munities, because  most  of  the  communities 
are  lacking  all  of  those  services. 

Mr.  Stokes:  There  is  a  greater  expense  in 
social  terms  if  they  don't  do  anything. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Can  members  imagine 
people  in  southern  Ontario  or  in  other  urban 
centres  settling  for  anything  less  than  that? 
They  wouldn't  do  it. 

It  doesn't  make  sense  to  suggest  to  these 
people  in  these  remote  communities  that  they 
move  into  the  larger  urban  centres,  either  in 
the  north  or  in  southern  Ontario.  Those 
centres  are  having  trouble,  in  an  employment 
sense,  supporting  their  existing  populations. 
And  besides,  very  often  the  jobs  that  are 
available  in  the  larger  urban  centres  require 
a  degree  of  expertise  or  education,  specializa- 
tion, that  those  people  in  the  unorganized 
remote  communities  simply  do  not  have.  So 
it  doesn't  make  sense  to  say  move  them  out 
of  there.  That's  not  going  to  solve  any  prob- 
lem. We  just  create  another  problem  in  the 
urban  centre. 

So  the  alternative  is  to  do  something  with 
the  community.  And  for  heaven's  sake,  the 
government  should  make  up  its  mind  soon 
whether  or  not  it  is  going  to  regard  those 
communities  as  viable  entities  or  not  and  tell 
the  people  that  instead  of  misleading  them 
now  into  thinking  that  there  is  a  winter  works 
project  here  and  there  is  an  OFY  project 
here.  That's  not  solving  the  problem. 

Mr.  Martel:  Maybe  a  youth  programme. 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  Provincial  Secretary  for 
Social  Development  is  very  hard  on  the  OFY 
projects.  I  could  show  her  a  provincial 
winter  works  project  up  north,  near  the  town 
of  Foleyet,  where  in  the  winter  time  they 
cut  off  all  the  brush  at  snow  level  along  the 
road.  Do  members  know  how  deep  the  snow 
is  in  the  winter  time  in  Foleyet? 


200 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


Mr.  Givens:  How  deep  is  it? 

Mr.  Laughren:  Five  or  six  feet.  And  then 
in  the  summer  time,  of  course,  they  had  to 
have  another  government  project  to  cut  the 
brush  off  at  ground  level.  Well,  they  are 
doing  a  lot  for  the  development  of  that  com- 
munity, aren't  they?  They  are  not  breaking 
any  cycles  when  they  do  things  like  that. 
People  still  have  the  same  pattern.  Cyclical 
poverty  continues  and  it  is  not  doing  any- 
thing for  the  community. 

But  more  than  that,  more  than  the  prob- 
lem of  employment,  many  of  the  people  in 
those  towns  have  financial  ties  there.  They 
have  family  ties  there  and  they  may  have 
some  form  of  employment  there.  So  I'm  not 
talking  simply  about  creating  employment  for 
the  unemployed  in  those  communities.  I  am 
talking  about  making  those  communities  a 
different  place  in  which  to  live.  It's  a  very 
hard  thing  to  say,  but  if  we  look  at  the 
houses  in  a  lot  of  those  unorganized  com- 
munities, they  would  be  unacceptable  in 
Toronto.  If  we  look  at  the  problems  with  the 
lot  sizes,  we  find  out  that  no  ministry  will 
give  them  approval  for  a  septic  tank;  so  in 
1974  they  are  condemned  to  outdoor  privies, 
and  that's  one  reason  we  have  polluted  water 
tables. 

Interjection  by  an  hon.  member. 

Mr.  Laughren:  There  is  absolutely  no  grant 
from  any  ministry  of  government  to  help 
them  build  holding  tanks,  to  help  them  pay 
for  a  truck  to  empty  those  holding  tanks  or 
to  have  a  sewage  lagoon— nothing  whatsoever 
—and  yet  other  communities  get  up  to  75 
per  cent  in  subsidies  for  their  sewage  systems. 
But  not  the  im  organized  communities— they 
don't  get  a  single  penny. 

This  is  something  the  government  should 
be  embarrassed  about.  If  they  are  not,  it's 
only  because  there  are  few  people  up  there 
and  nobody  pays  any  attention  to  them.  But 
the  standard  of  living  in  those  unorganized 
communities  is  something  about  which  this 
government  should  be  ashamed. 

I  would  like  to  document  a  few  towns  and 
tell  what  the  inadequacies  are  in  those  towns. 
I  tend  not  to  be  very  parochial  in  my 
speeches  in  this  House,  Mr.  Speaker— prob- 
ably not  enough— but  when  we  talk  about 
unorganized  communities,  I  think  that  the 
riding  of  Nickel  Belt  is  probably  a  good  ex- 
ample of  a  northern  riding  with  unorganized 
communities.  I  will  now  document  six  com- 
munities; there  are  many  more  in  Nickel  Belt, 
but  I  will  document  six  of  them. 


Cartier:  It  has  inadequate  recreational 
facilities,  medical  services,  fire  protection, 
access  by  road  and  sewage  disposal.  I  men- 
tion access  by  road,  because  can  you  imagine, 
Mr.  Speaker,  a  town  with  700  or  800  people 
—it  is  only  40  miles  north  of  Sudbury,  but  it  is 
unorganized— cut  off  from  a  highway,  in  this 
case.  Highway  144,  from  any  kind  of  entrance 
or  exit,  by  a  shunting  yard  of  the  CPR?  If 
people  want  to  get  out  and  go  to  work,  some- 
times they  have  to  wait  40  or  45  minutes 
while  the  trains  shunt  back  and  forth.  There 
are  no  lights  or  traflBc  sigi^ls  there,  and 
there  is  no  requirement  by  the  railw^ay  that 
they  have  to  move  out  of  the  way  within, 
say,  10  or  15  minutes,  because  it's  classified 
as  a  shunting  yard. 

Here  are  people,  40  miles  north  of  Sud- 
bury, who  live  in  fear  that  at  some  point 
there  is  going  to  be  a  serious  illness  or  an 
accident  on  one  side  of  the  tracks— but  try  to 
move  a  freight  train.  There  are  two  or  three 
of  them  going  back  and  forth  at  the  same 
time,  if  one  wants  to  get  out  in  a  hurry. 

Gogama,  a  little  farther  north,  which  I 
mentioned  earlier  as  having  been  cut  off  b\^ 
the  Ministry  of  Transportation  and  Com- 
munications, has  inadequate  recreational 
facihties,  inadequate  medical  services,  inade- 
quate fire  protection,  inadequate  sewage  dis- 
posal, inadequate  drinking  water  and  inade- 
quate garbage  disposal. 

Mr.  Martel:  Except  for  the  Tories. 

Mr.  Laughren:  That's  the  town,  Mr. 
Speaker,  where  10  years  ago  there  was  a 
chemical  spill  that  polluted'  part  of  the  water 
table.  Mind  you,  the  Ministry  of  Natural 
Resources  and  the  OFF  are  well  off.  They 
have  a  community  water  supply  and  sewage 
disposal.  But  not  the  rest  of  the  town.  The} 
have  nothing.  And  that's  where  over  50  per 
cent  of  the  wells  now  are  polluted  with 
nitrate,  which  is  dangerous  to  the  health  of 
infants.  Over  50  per  cent  of  the  wells  are 
polluted  and  yet  to  this  day  there  are  no 
grants  available  from  this  government  to 
rectify  that  situation.  Can  you  imagine,  Mr. 
Speaker,  a  community  in  southern  Ontario 
having  50  per  cent  of  its  wells  polluted  with 
a  substance  that's  dangerous  to  the  health  of 
infants,  without  a  public  outcry? 

Mr.  Gaunt:  No  way. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Shocking. 

Mr.  Martel:  Shame. 

Mr.  Foulds:  It  is  never  mentioned— 


MARCH  12,  1974 


201 


Mr.  Martel:  That  is  how  the  vote  goes  too. 
The  Tories  all  vote  and  they  have  the  sewer 
and  water  —  and  the  Ministry  of  Natural 
Resources  and  the  OPP.    They  are  all  Tories. 

Mr.  Laughren:  My  colleague  from  Sudbury 
East  is  quite  right  that  when  you  drive  into 
the  town,  it's  the  classic  example  of  the  other 
side  of  the  tracks.  You  drive  into  town  and 
there  are  the  nice  big  white  houses  where 
the  government  employees  live.  It's  not  the 
I  fault  of  those  individuals  working  for  the 
f  government  there  now;  it's  the  fault  of  a 
government  that  doesn't  see  that  they  have 
created  —  and  I  don't  know  whether  it  is 
I  deliberate  or  not  —  such  an  incredible  class 
l  structure  within  that  commimity  that  there 
has  to  be  hard  feelings,  as  the  people  in  the 
town  see  the  government  employees  really 
well  off  while  they  them.selves  live  in  inade- 
quate housing,  their  water  table  is  polluted 
and  there  is  no  sewage  disposal.  They  live 
with  outdoor  privies  and  unpaved  roads,  but 
nothing  is  ever  done.  This  has  been  docu- 
mented to  different  ministries  of  government 
time  after  time,  year  after  year,  and  still  it  is 
neglected.  It  is  truly  a  disgrace. 

Shining  Tree,  another  community,  is  prob- 
ably worse  off  than  either  Cartier  or  Gogama. 
It  has  inadequate  recreational  facilities,  in- 
adequate garbage  disposal,  inadequate  sew- 
age disposal,  inadequate  drinking  water,  in- 
adequate access  roads,  inadequate  medical 
services,  and  inadequate  telephone  service. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  has 
no  telephone  service,  and  Northern  Tele- 
phone will  not  put  in  lines,  despite  the  fact 
that  Ontario  Hydxo  offered  them  the  use  of 
their  poltes.  They  won't  put  it  in.  There's 
no  ministry  in  this  government  that  will  say, 
"This  is  fundamentally  wrong,  let's  put  it  in 
there."  Nobody  says  that.  Those  people 
just  wish  that  they  were  under  the  Depart- 
ment of  Indian  Affairs,  where  much  much 
smaller  communities  than  those  have  been 
provided  with  services  that  put  this  govern- 
ment to  shame. 

Shining  Tree  also  has  inadequate  housing 
and  inadequate  fire  protection.  Foleyet  has 
inadequate  medical  services,  inadequate  gar- 
bage disposal,  inadequate  housing,  inade- 
quate drinking  water  and  inadequate  sewage 
disposal.  Ramsey  has  inadequate  medical 
services,  inadequate  recreational  facihties,  in- 
adequate garbage  disposal,  inadequate  sew- 
age disposal,  inadequate  drinking  water,  and 
inadequate  access  roads.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
Ramsey  is  on  a  private  road,  and  you  have 
to  get  a  pass  to  get  into  it. 


I'd  hke  to  tell  you  about  going  into  that 
place  one  time,  Mr.  Speaker.  When  I  went 
in,  I  had  a  fellow  with  me. 

The  fellow  at  the  gate  said,  "Where  are 
you  going?" 

I  said,  "Into  Ramsey." 

He  said,  "Who  are  you  going  to  see?" 

I  said,  "Well,  everybody  I  can." 

He    was    an    employee    of    Edd\     Forest 

Products,  and  he  said,  "What  have  you  got 

with  you?" 

This  was  in  the  wintertime.  We  said,  "We 

have  a  few  guns  and  a  few  grenades  and  a 

few  Molotov  cocktails.   It's  the  start  of  the 

winter  campaign." 

He  said,  "You  haven't  got  any  chain  saws, 
have  you?" 

We  said,  "No,  just  guns  and  bombs  and 
that." 

He  said,  "I  don't  want  you  to  cut  any  trees 
when  you're  out  there." 

So  he  gave  us  a  key  and  we  went  through. 

An  hon.  member:  What  was  the  key  for? 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  key  is  to  get  through 
the  gate. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Did  the  member  shoot  any 
trees? 

Mr.  Laughren:  It's  locked.  There's  a  gate 
at  each  end  and  this  community  is  in  be- 
tween the  two  gates.  It's  Crown  land  and 
all  Eddy  Forest  have  is  cutting  rights  on  it, 
but  they've  put  gates  up  at  each  end  to  stop 
the  public  from  going  through.  They  do  open 
the  gates  up  on  the  weekend  to  let  people 
go  in  and  hunt,  but  you  should  see  the  form 
you  have  to  sign,  Mr.  Speaker.  I'm  sure  it's 
more  complicated  than  an  international  adop- 
tion. 

An  hon.  member:  It's  feudal. 

Mr.  Laughren:  You  remember  the  problems 
they  had  in  the  Province  of  Ontario  with  this. 
Those  are  the  kind  of  antique  laws  and  rules 
that  govern  the  unorganized  communities  in 
northern  Ontario.  It  just  doesn't  make  sense. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Like  the  sheriff  of  Nottingham. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Besides  having  those  inade- 
quacies, Ramsey  has  inadequate  housing,  in- 
adequate fire  protection,  and  onl>-  a  Delco 
unit  for  the  supply  of  energy,  and  once  again, 
at  much  in  excess  of  the  rate  that  Ontario 
Hydro  charges  its  users. 


202 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


The  last  community  I  wish  to  talk  about  is 
Sultan.  Sultan  is  just  outside  one  of  these 
famous  gates  that  Eddy  Forest  Products  has 
set  up.  They  have  inadequate  housing,  inade- 
quate medical  services,  inadequate  recrea- 
tional facilities  and  inadequate  access  roads. 
You  can  only  get  up  from  the  north  because 
from  the  south  you  have  to  go  through  that 
private  road.  They  have  inadequate  fire  pro- 
tection and  inadequate  hydro.  They  too  have 
Delco  units,  but  at  three  times  the  rate  of 
Ontario  Hydro.  They  have  inadequate  tele- 
phone '  service,  inadequate  garbage  disposal, 
inadequate  sewage  disposal  and  inadequate 
■drinking  water. 

I  should  be  careful  when  I'm  quoting  this 
as  three  times  the  rate  as  Ontario  Hydro. 
Maybe  now  it's  only  double! 

Mr.  Mattel:  It's  only  double  after  the  last 
bills  that  came  out. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Particularly  with  the  rural 
rates. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  After  the  last  raise,  yes. 

Mr.  Laughren:  There  are  other  communi- 
ties in  northern  Ontario  for  which  I  could 
•document  the  inadequacy  of  services,  but  I 
think  that  should  point  out  to  you,  Mr.  Speak- 
er, that  it's  a  serious  matter.  It's  not  some- 
thing that  this  government  is  not  aware  of 
and  that  it  can  plead  innocent  on.  They've 
known  about  it  for  a  number  of  years  and 
yet  they  continue  to  ignore  them.  Until  a  plat- 
form is  put  in  under  those  communities  and 
on  that  platform  is  a  level  of  services  to 
bring— 

Mr.  Stokes:  Did  they  ever  hear  about  these 
problems  from  the  former  member?  Did  he 
ever  speak  about  them  in  the  Legislature? 

Mr.  Laughren:  I  haven't  seen  any  corre- 
-spondence  on  it. 

Mr.  Martel:  He  spoke  about  how  great 
these  r'ebates  were  and  how  much  they  were 
doing  for  us. 

Mr.  Laughren:  I  really  want  to  make  the 
point,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  utilizing  the  resources 
of  the  Social  Development  policy  field  is  not 
the  answer,  because  that  will  only  perpetu- 
ate the  problem.  It  won't  change  it  at  all. 
It  won't  change  the  cyclical  aspect  of  the 
problem  there. 

Mr.  A.  J.  Roy  (Ottawa  East):  Will  it  help 
the  new  minister? 

Mr.  Laughren:  No. 


Mr.  Roy:  No? 

Mr.  Laughren:  No;  it  would  take  a  major 
commitment  on  the  part  of  Management 
Board  to  allocate  those  $30-pl'us  million.  Now 
I  hope  the  provincial  secretary  is  listening 
and  will  take  a  look  at  those  millions  that 
are  available. 

Mr.  Stokes:  The  Provincial  Secretary  for 
Social  Development;  she  is  making  notes. 

Mr.  Laughren:  There  is  no  excuse  for  not 
using  them. 

Lest  the  provincial  secretary  think  I  may 
be  exaggerating  somewhat,  although  it's  hard 
to  th'nk  she  would  accuse  me  of  that,  she 
should  check  with  her  own  peoplte  in  her 
own  social  development  policy  field.  They  will 
tell  her.  They  know.  They  know  what  the 
inadequacies  are  there,  and  they  are  embar- 
rassed by  it. 

Mr.  Stokes:  I  think  she  should  drive  up 
there  with  the  hon.  member  and  see  first 
hand. 

Mr.  Laughren:  And,  Mr.  Speaker,  those  of 
us  who  see  discrepancies  in  the  delivery  of 
services  in  those  communities,  we  see  a  strik- 
ing parallel  in  the  similarity  between  Canada 
and  the  United  States  and  southern  Ontario 
and  northern  Ontario.  We,  as  a  country,  as  a 
province,  are  a  resource  frontier  for  that  great 
American  empire  to  the  south  of  us;  and  in 
turn  northern  Ontario  is  a  resource  frontier 
for  southern  Ontario. 

Mr.  Martel:  Remember  Dr.  Thoman's  plan? 

Mr.  Laughren:  That's  why  we  don't  have 
the  kind  of  development  we  should  have 
there. 

And  in  neither  case  is  the  answer  in  mas- 
sive infusion  of  paternalistic  pronouncements 
or  grant  money.  That  won't  solve  the 
problem.  It's  ridiculous  that  in  northern 
Ontario  this  government  is  still  using  the 
announcement  of  a  new  highway  project  or 
a  grant  for  construction  of  a  government 
building  to  do  what  they  think  will  con- 
vince people  to  vote  Conservative. 

We've  gone  way  beyond  that  in  northern 
Ontario.  We've  passed  them  way  by.  It 
doesn't  matter  what  they  offer  in  1975, 
they're  going  to  suffer  electoral  losses  in 
northern   Ontario.   It's   inevitable. 

If  they  don't  believe  me,  check  with  the 
member  for  Timiskaming.  Because  we  know, 
and  the  people  in  northern  Ontario  know, 
that   the   ad   hoc  measures   the   government 


MARCH  12,  1974 


203 


has  come  up  with  to  date  are  not  the 
answer.  There's  been  too  many  years  of  it. 
There's  a  new  mood  in  northern  Ontario. 
The  government  can  write  off  that  whole 
campaign  for  a  separate  province  in  northern 
Ontario— heaven  knows  I'm  not  supporting  it. 
They  can  write  that  off  if  they  want;  to 
them  it's  just  an  aberration  on  the  social 
scene,  or.  the  political  scene.  But  it's  more 
than  that.  It  indicates  a  very  serious  feeling 
of  neglect  by  the  people  in  northern 
Ontario. 

Mr.    Martel:    That's    why   it's    Tory-run. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Yes,  it  is  run  by  a  Tory. 
Right. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Is  Diebel  a  Tory? 

Mr.  Martel:  Yes,  sure. 

Mr.  Stokes:  Oh. 

Mr.   Laughren:    If   I   could,   Mr.   Speaker, 
through    you    ask    the    various    ministers    of 
the  government- 
Mr.    Foulds:    Who    are    all    sitting    there, 
of  course! 

Mr.  Laughren:  Does  it  not  bother  them 
that  the  federal  Minister  of  Regional 
Economic  Expansion  has  admitted  that  the 
growth  rate  in  northern  Ontario  is  slower 
than  the.  growth  rate  in  the  Maritimes?  Does 
it  not  bother  them  that  the  population  of 
northern  Ontario,  in  a  relative  sense,  is 
declining  according  to  the  Ontario  Economic 
Review  dated  September-October,  1973? 
Northern    Ontario's    proportion    of    the 

total    provincial    population    is    declining, 

having  fallen  from  11.6  per  cent  in  1961 

to  10.1  per  cent  in  1971. 

Why  is  the.  relative  population  of  northern 
Ontario  falliiig?  I  think  it  should  be  clear 
to  the  government  that  it's  because  the  job 
offers  are  not  there,  the  industrial  develop- 
ment is  not  there. 

Does  it  riot  bother  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
through  you  to  the  ministers,  that  at  Inter- 
national Nickel  Co.  in  Sudbury  alone,  there 
are  now  5,000  less  hourly-rated  employees 
than  there  were  just  a  couple  of  years  ago? 
Does  it  not  bother  them  as  well,  that  the 
Economic  Council  of  Canada,  in  its  recent 
report,  it's  10th  annual  report,  indicates 
that  employment  in  our  resource  industries 
is  growing  iat  a  very  slow  rate  indeed.  I'd 
like  to  quote  some  of  those  figures  to 
members: 

For  the  period  1948  to  1970,  employment 
in    minesi    quarries    and    oil    wells    grew    at 


an  annual  rate  of  only  1.4  per  cent.  In 
forestry,  employment  declined  at  a  1.1 
per  cent  rate  per  year. 

That's  a  22-year  period. 

This  compares  with  annual  increases  of 
3.3  per  cent  in  utilities;  two  per  cent  in 
manufacturing;  6.2  per  cent  in  community 
business  and  personal  services;  2.9  per  cent 
in  wholesale  and  retail  trade;  2.5  per  cent 
in  construction;  and  4.6  per  cent  in  finance, 
insurance  and  real  estate— to  name  just  a 
few  sectors. 

And  for  the  economy  as  a  whole,  emplo\- 
ment  grew  at  an  annual  rate  of  2.4  per 
cent.  It  should  be  noted  that  while  em- 
ployment increased  by  1.4  per  cent  in  the 
mines,  quarries  and  oil  well  sector,  output 
was  up  by  6.5  per  cent  per  year  for  those 
22  years.  For  the  forestry  sector  which  had, 
members  will  recall,  a  decline  in  employ- 
ment of  1.1  per  cent  a  year,  output  in- 
creased by  4.2  per  cent  a  year.  For  both 
forestry  and  mining,  employment  is  stag- 
nating and  production  is  going  up  at  above 
normal  rates.  That  is  what  this  government 
means  for  the  futiue  of  northern  Ontario 
if  it  continues  on  its  present  path. 

There  is  a  great  deal  that  should  bother 
tjiis  government  about  northern  Ontatro 
besides  those  unorganized  communities  I 
was  talking  about.  Not  least  should  be  the 
future  of  our  young,  better  educated  people 
of  both  sexes  in  northern  Ontario.  We  now 
have  community  colleges  in  all  the  major 
centres  in  northern  Ontario.  We  have  two 
universities  in  northern  Ontario.  But  isn't 
it  ironic  that  the  better  paying,  more 
stimulating  jobs  are  not  there  for  those. same 
graduates?  What  does  the  government  pro- 
pose to  do  about  that?  I  would  suggest  to 
you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  it  stop  trying  to 
bribe  northern  Ontario  with  these  one-shot 
construction  jobs.  It  won't  work  any  more. 
Tell  us,  rather,  that  it  intends  to  intervene 
in  an  aggressive  way  in  our  resource  in- 
dustries. Tell  us  it  intends  to  use  our  re- 
sources to  create  jobs.  Tell  us  it  intends  to 
do  these  things  through  Crown  corporations. 

Mr.  Martel:  Show  us  the  way.  It  has 
given  its  shirt  away. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Show  us,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
it  really  does  comprehend  what  economic 
development  is   all   about.    It  is   not  grants. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  government  has  given 
everything  away  but  the  kitchen  sink. 

Mr.  Laughren:  In  other  words,  Mr. 
Speaker,  we  don't  want  roads  to  resources. 


204 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


We  want  resources.  I  suspect  that  the  min- 
ing industry  is  beginning  to  feel  the  pressure 
as  pubhc  opinion  changes  across  Canada  and 
in  this  province  as  well.  Public  opinion  is 
becoming  very  concerned  about  the  role 
the  mining  industry  has  played  in  our 
economy  and  it  is  interesting  to  note  how  the 
mining  industry  reacts  when  the  pressure 
is  on. 

I  would  like  to  quote  very  briefly  from  the 
Mining  Association  of  EC  which  the  member 
from  Forest  Hill  quoted.  This  is  Mr.  W.  J. 
Tough,  who  is  president  of  the  Mining 
Association  of  BC. 

Two  things  are  expected  to  happen  from 
the  royalty  increase  in  B.C.  With  the  addi- 
tional costs  those  who  have  the  option 
will  have  to  raise  the  grade  of  ore  mined, 
thereby  reducing  reserves  and  shortening 
the  life  of  the  mines,  not  to  mention  leav- 
ing much  needed  valuable  minerals  in  the 
ground. 

I  want  to  tell  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  if  that  isn't 
a  clarion  call  to  arms  I  don't  know  what  is. 
There  you  have  the  Mining  Association  of 
B.C  saying  if  the  taxes  are  raised  they  are 
going  to  high-grade  the  ore  and  leave  the 
rest  in  the  ground.  If  that  is  the  kind  of 
intimidation  we'll  subject  ourselves  to  in  this 
country,  I  suggest  it  is  time  we  did  something 
about  those  resources. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  minister  bends  over  back- 
wards to  the  industry. 

Mr.  Laugbren:  I  don't  know  what  you  call 
that  but  I  can  only  think  of  the  words  in- 
timidation and  bluflBng.  It  is  really  a  bluff 
because  they  are  not  going  to  move  any- 
where else  because  the  ores  aren't  anywhere 
else. 

Mr.  Martel:  He  needs  a  bar  of  soap. 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  Mining  Association  of 
BC  is  just  one.  Let  me  quote  from  the  North- 
em  Miner,  March  7,  1974.  This  is  the  Min- 
ing Association  of  Canada,  Mr.  Charles 
Elliott.  He  noted  that  there  are  deterrents  to 
increasing  processing  and  manufacturing  in 
mineral  products  in  Canada  imposed  by  the 
tariff  structure  of  other  industrialized  nations 
which  allow  duty-free  entry  or  very  little 
dut\'  on  ores  and  concentrates  which  they 
require.  They  impose  progressively  higher 
duties  on  minerals  in  proportion  to  the  de- 
gree of  finther  processing  which  has  occurred. 
Mr.  Elliott  cited  other  non-tariff  barriers  in- 
cluding the  structure  of  freight  rates  which 
make  it  generally  cheaper  to  transport  min- 
erals  in   concentrate  rather  than  in  metallic 


form.  A  competitive  advantage  is  thus  gained 
by  processing  plants  located  close  to  metal 
markets,  he  explained.  "Let  us  not  delude 
ourselves  that  we  can,  by  the  wave  of  a 
wand,  create  further  processing  of  our 
mineral  products  beyond  what  good  eco- 
nomics will  support,"  he  said. 

If  I  could  just  paraphrase  what  Mr.  Elliott 
is  saying,  he  is  saying  that  it  is  really  diffi- 
cult for  us  to  increase  processing  in  this 
country  because  other  countries  have  low  im- 
port rates  on  unfinished  ores  and  high  tariffs 
on  finished  products.  Does  he  not  see  the 
insanity  of  going  along  with  that?  Of  course 
other  countries  will  say,  "Look,  you  ship  us 
your  ores.  Well  process  them  here.  We'll 
give  you  a  good  deal  on  the  tariflF  because 
we  want  to  process  them  here." 

That  is  where  the  employment  is,  in  the 
processing  and  in  the  refining,  not  in  the  ex- 
traction from  the  ground.  We  saw  that  in 
the  employment  figures.  It  is  declining.  So 
the  job  opportunities  are  in  the  processing 
and  refining,  and  here  we  have  the  president 
of  the  Mining  Association  of  Canada  saying  it 
would  be  very  difficult  to  process  and  refine 
our  ore  here  because  there  is  a  real  break 
on  tariffs  when  we  ship  it  out  in  unprocessed 
form. 

What  kind  of  convoluted  logic  is  that,  that 
we  are  subjecting  ourselves  to? 

Mr.  Marteh  They  need  to  do  it  themselves. 

Mr.  Laughren:  It  is  too  ridiculous.  I  sus- 
pect that  the  mining  associations  are  over- 
reacting to  the  kind  of  public  pressure  that 
is  building  in  this  country  and  in  this  prov- 
ince. While  it  may  not  be  a  ground  swell  yet, 
I  can  assure  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the 
public  ownership  of  our  resources  is  going 
to  be  one  and  the  day  will  come  when  all 
governments  will  realize  the  benefits  of  it. 

As  other  jurisdictions,  such  as  BC,  move 
stronger  and  stronger  into  the  resource  in- 
dustry and  take  more  in  taxation  from  those 
corporations,  people  in  other  jurisdictions, 
such  as  Ontario,  will  say,  "Why  are  we  in 
Ontario  allowed  so  little  return  back?"  That 
is  going  to  happen.  It  is  happening  now. 

It  is  significant  as  well'  that  this  feeling 
from  the  public  is  being  expressed  by  differ- 
ent people  from  all  walks  of  life.  We  had 
Eric  Kierans  with  his  report  saying  that  you 
couldn't  really  nationalize  what  you  already 
owned  anyway,  so  let's  get  on  with  the  busi- 
ness. We  had  Kates  Peat  Marwick  with  its 
report  last  spring  to  the  select  committer* 
on  economic  and  cultural  nationalism.  Then 
there  is  the  Science  Council  of  Canada's  re- 


MARCH  12,  1974 


205 


port,  which  frankly  and  unequivocably  says 
that  there  are  certain  benefits  to  public  own- 
ership of  our  natural  resources,  and  more 
recently  we  had  another  report  from  Kates 
Peat  Marwiclc  entitled  "Foreign  Ownership, 
Corporate  Behaviour  and  Public  Attitudes." 
This  report  was  the  overview  report,  also  for 
the  select  committee  on  economic  and  cul- 
tural nationalism. 

Now  those  who  know  Kates  Peat  Marwick 
as  a  consulting  firm  will  know  that  it  doesn't 
have  a  bias  towards  socialism,  that  on  the 
other  hand  it  is  a  corporation  that  fits  very 
well  in  the  corporate  milieu  in  Ontario.  I'd 
like  to  quote  from  that  report  in  talking 
about  national  resources  as  a  bargaining  lever. 
I  quote: 

One  obvious  area  in  which  Canada  has 
significant  comparative  advantages  relative 
to  most  industrial  countries  is  that  of  natural 
resources.  [And  they  go  on  further:]  It  has 
been  easier  to  sell  our  natural  resources 
and  import  technology  and  manufactured 
products  from  other  countries  than  to  build 
a  domestically  controlled  industrial  com- 
ple;c  \yhich  matches  in  size,  range  and  self- 
reliaiic^  the  scope  of  our  domestic  market 
and  resource  base.  [And  then,  going  fur- 
ther:] Canada's  resource  base,  coupled  with 
the  growing  shortages  of  energy  and  min- 
eral resources  being  experienced  by  most 
industrialized  countries,  provides  us  with  a 
significant  bargaining  lever  which  can  be 
used  in. a  number  of  ways.        ,  ,,^    ' 

I'd  like  to  quote  a  couple  of  those  ways  that 
we  can  , use  our  resoiu-ces  as  a  bargaining 
lever,  apQording  to  Kates  Peat  Marwick: 

To  influence  the  behaviour  of  firms  de- 
veloping and  purchasing  our  resources  such 
that  both  forward  and  backward  integra- 
tion is  carried  out  in  this  country,  leading 
to  greater  value  added  in  Canada,  more 
use  of  Canadian  suppliers  in  a  more  broad- 
ly' based,  innovative,  responsive,  remuner- 
ated industrial  system  in  Canada,  and  to 
generate  in  those  carefully  selected  cases 
where  resources  are  exported  in  unprocess- 
ed or  semi-processed  form,  revenues  which 
will  be  used  both  to  finance  the  develop- 
ment of  a  broader  resource  and  industrial 
base  and  to  purchase  control  on  a  selec- 
tive basis  of  a  number  of  large,  key  cor- 
porations which  are  now  foreign  controlled. 

Mr.  Martel:  Here  comes  the  Minister  of 
Natural  Resources  (Mr.  Bemier).  He  is  go- 
ing to  refute  all  that.  He  is  going  to  use  Dr. 
Andrews'  report. 


Mr.  Laughren:  Now  Kates  Peat  Marwick 
doesn't  come  right  out  and  say  that  we  should 
bring  all  our  national  resources  under  public 
ownership,  but  when  it  does  talk  they  use 
rather  cautious  language.  There  is  a  very  in- 
teresting paragraph  right  near  the  end  of 
that  report  and  I  quote  it  in  full': 

It  should  also  be  emphasized  that  pur- 
chasing of  Canadian  control,  while  possibly 
requiring    government    initiative    for    im- 
mediate  results,   does   not  necessarily   im- 
ply public  ownership  of  the  selected  key 
firms.  Shares  acquired  by  government  agen- 
cies such  as  the  Canada  Development  Corp. 
could  in  turn  be  sold  to  Canadian  citizens 
and  corporations,  although  in  some  cases, 
particularly  those  of  firms  involved  in  non- 
renewable    natural     resources,     continuing 
public  ownership  might  be  more  appropri- 
ate. 
Mr.    Speaker,    when  you    have    Kates    Peat 
Marwick   and    Co.    recommending    that    the 
continuing  public  ownership  of  our  natural 
resources  "might  be  more  appropriate,"  one 
can  be  sure  that  they  feel  underneath,  they 
have  a  gut  feeling,  that  it  has  go  to  be  that 
way— not  just  "might  be  more  appropriate." 

Mr.  Martel:  It  is  now  a  case  of  giving 
them  to  some  American  firm.  Repeat  that  for 
the  minister. 

An  hon.  member:  I  don't  think  the  min- 
ister heard  it. 

Mr.  Martel:  Repeat  that  for  the  minister; 
he  didn't  hear  it. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Would  the  Minister  of 
Natural  Resources  like  me  to  repeat  that? 
I  said: 

—the  Canada  Development  Corp.  could 
in  turn  be  sold  to  Canadian  citizens  and 
corporations,  although  in  some  cases,  par- 
ticularly those  of  firms  involved  in  non- 
renewable natural  resources,  continuing 
public  ownership  might  be  more  appro- 
priate. 

Well,  translate  "might  be  more  appropriate" 
to    "would    be    more    appropriate." 

Mr.  Foulds:  It  would  be  a  damn  good 
idea. 

Mr.  Laughren:  So  here  we  have  a  con- 
sulting report  that  recommends  basically 
more  Canadian  control  in  the  industry.  That 
is  really  what  they  are  talking  about— Cana- 
dian control.  Now,  I  suppose  they  woidd  see 
it  as  returning  the  resources  to  control  by 
Canadian    corporations    to    those  same    cor- 


206 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


porate  interests  that  sold  them  out  in  the 
first  place.  Well,  that  is  not  my  bag;  we  cer- 
tainly reject  that. 

It  is  becoming  clearer  and  clearer  to  us 
on  this  side— well,  this  particular  segment  of 
this  side  of  the  House— as  it  is  to  a  growing 
number  of  people  in  Ontario  and  elsewhere, 
that  only  through  public  ownership  of  our 
resources  will  the  people  of  this  province 
receive  a  maximum  benefit  from  their  exploi- 
tation. 

There  are  three  major  reasons.  People 
sometimes  ask  me,  "Why?  How  would  we  all 
benefit  so  much?"  There  are  three  major 
reasons,  I  believe,  why  our  resources  should 
be  publicly  owned: 

1.  To  create  employment  and  to  ensure 
employment  in  that  industry. 

2.  To  provide  revenues  so  that  the  quality 
of  life  can  be  improved  for  all  people,  but 
in  particular  those  people  in  those  resource- 
rich  communities.  Take  a  look  at  those  re- 
source-rich communities  in  northern  Ontario. 
Some  of  them  are  the  very  communities  that 
I  outlined  earlier  this  afternoon  as  not  even 
having  the  basic  amenities. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Right  on. 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  same  communities. 

3.  Because  I  believe  that  only  through 
public  ownership  can  we  maintain  our  eco- 
nomic independence;  and  that  is  really  what 
the  select  committee  was  talking  about  and 
that  is  what  Kates  Peat  Marwick  is  talking 
about. 

It  is  not  enough,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  we 
talk  about  increasing  the  taxation  of  these 
resources.  Mr.  Speaker,  for  20  years  I  have 
listened  to  the  mining  industry  tell  us  that 
if  we  increase  the  taxes  on  our  resources  we 
would  restrict  growth,  we  would  restrict 
exploration,  we  would  restrict  development. 
Well,  I  am  not  for  restricting  those  things, 
Mr,  Speaker- 
Mr.  Martel:  The  former  Minister  of  Mines 
said  W3  would  bankrupt  them. 

Mr.  Laughren:  —and  that's  why  I  say  that 
taxing  them  more  in  a  short-term  may  ac- 
complish something,  but  not  in  the  long 
term. 

The  private  sector  has  had  three-quarters 
of  a  century  in  this  province  to  create  some 
kind  of  industrial  development  based  on 
those  resources  as  a  lever.  They  have  failed 
miserably,  and  in  doing  so  they  haven't  even 
created  the  kind  of  communities  in  the  north 
that  should  just  have  been  automatic  in  their 
development— but   they   haven't   done   it. 


Our  economy  has  not  developed  in  a 
healthy  way. 

Mr.  I.  Deans  ( Wentworth ) :  But  the}'  have 
been  helped  by  the  Tory  government. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Well,  they  have  been 
pushed  by  the  Tory  government  to  develop 
that  way  and  by  the  present  Minister  of 
Natural  Resources. 


all. 


Mr.  Martel:  He  is  the  worst  one  of  them 
1. 

Interjections  by  hon.  members.  . 

Mr.  Laughren:    Mr.   Speaker,   it   is— 

Mr.  Cassidy:  That  is  not  spoken  in  jest. 

Hon.  S.  B.  Handleman  (Minister  of  Hous- 
ing ) :   Tongue  in  cheek? 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  not  even 
fair  to  ask  or  to  expect  that  the  multinational 
corporations  will  develop  secondary  industry 
in  Ontario,  because  that  is  not  the  way  in 
whidh  they  can  maximize  their  profits.  That's 
the  name  of  the  game.  We  shouldn't  expect 
otherwise  of  them,  because  to  do  so  is  naive. 
So  let's  not  think  or  be  mad  at  the  multi- 
nationals; it  is  not  their  fault.  They  are  there 
to  maximize  their  profits  for  the  shareholders. 
Those  are  the  rules  of  the  game,  and  we 
should  accept  them.  I  would  like  to  quote 
from  the  Science  Council  report  that  was  put 
out  a  year  or  so  ago: 

In  longer  term  perspective  we  niust  bear 
in  mind  that  these  resources  are  non- 
renewable and  that  they  are  finite.  Project- 
ing past  growth  rates  into  the  future  will 
exhaust  presently  known  reserves  of  several 
of  our  major  minerals  by  1990.  With  a 
(Vigorous  exploration  programme  we  could 
probably  find  most  of  these  exploitable 
deposits  and  thus  sustain  the  exponential 
rate  of  growth  for  a  few  more  decades. 

But  is  this  wise?  Do  we  wish  to  be  re- 
membered as  the  generation  that  launched 
Canada  on  a  programme  of  rapid  exploita- 
tion for  the  export,  in  raw  or  semirprocess- 
ed  form,  of  the  resources  which  will  be 
in  such  short  supply  for  our  children  and 
our  grandchildTen?  Anything  beyond  the 
iyear  2000  looks  very  far  away  from  1972, 
but  the  year  2000  is  only  as  far  in  the 
future  as  1944  is  in  the  pasrt. 

Mr.  Speaker,  that's  what  the  Science  Coun- 
cil of  Canada  says  about  our  non-renewable 
resources.  Our  Minister  of  Natural  Resources 
has  had  someone  within  his  ministry  com- 
missioned, I  believe,  to  do  a  report  on  the 
Kierans  report. 


MARCH  12,  1974 


207 


Mr.  Martel:  What  a  dummy!  Another 
flunky! 

Mr.  Laughren:  That  critique  of  the  Kierans 
report  isn't  worth  the  paper  it's  written  on. 
I  would  suggest  that  maybe  the  minister 
should  spend  more  time  reading  the  Science 
Council  of  Canada's  reports  on  our  natural  re- 


Hon.  L.  Bemier  (Minister  of  Natural  Re- 
sources): What's  the  member's  philosophy? 

Mr.  Martel:  What  philosophy?  All  the  min- 
ing officials  employed  over  there  haven't  any 
philosophy. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  It's  a  lot  of  fresh  air 
and  the  member  knows  it. 

Mr.  Martel:  There  is  not  a  person  over 
there  that  is  not  hooked  by  him. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  no 
question  but  that  the  mining  industry  is  one 
of  the  basic  underpinnings  of  our  economy. 
I  don't  question  that.  As  such,  it  should  be 
treated  as  an  integral  part  of  the  development 
of  this  province.  Call  it  an  industrial  plan 
or  an  industrial  strategy,  if  you  want,  but 
natural  resources  should  be  part  of  that 
strategy-. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  They  haven't  got  one. 

Mr.  Laughren:  There  is  a  way  to  ensure 
that  the  exploitation  of  those  resources'  oc- 
curs for  the  benefit  of  the  entire  province 
and  the  people  in  it.  I'll  be  most  specific 
here.  This  government  should  develop  a 
policy  by  which  they  will  work  toward  a 
world-market-oriented  metal  fabricating  sec- 
ondary processing  and  manufacturing  indus- 
try  located  in    northern    Ontario. 

The  mining  companies  have  a  miserable 
record.  They  all  tend  to  export  earnings  to 
other  resource  frontiers  rather  than  to  spend 
them  in  this  province  to  develop  a  more 
mature,  balanced  and  integrated  economy. 

One  need  only  look,  Mr.  Speaker,  at  the 
antics  of  Fafconbridge  Nickel  Mines  else- 
where to  know  that  the  mining  companies 
presently  operating  in  this  province  do  so 
only  because  it  is  to  their  advantage. 
When  reserves  are  developed  elsewhere  that 
are  cheaper  to  extract  and  to  develop,  then 
you  can  be  sure  that  that's  where^  the  action 
will  be.    It  will  not  be  here. 

I,  for  one,  Mr.  Speaker,  am  not  proud 
of  the  way  corporations  such  as  Falconbridlge, 


Rio  Algom  through  it's  parent  company  Rio 
Tinto,  aid  and  abet  in  the  exploitation  of 
people  and  resources  elsewhere.  I  refer  speci- 
fically to  South  Africa. 

I  don't  expect  that  a  province  such  as 
Ontario  with  a  Conservative  government  like 
we  have  which  had  every  intention  of  send- 
ing a  trade  mission  to  South  Africa,  really 
to  understand  or  care  about  the  exploitation 
of  blacks  in  South  Africa.  But  it's  hap- 
pening and  it's  happening  at  least  partially 
as  a  result  of  the  profits  those  resource  cor- 
porations have  obtained  in  Canada  and  in 
this  province.  I  would  much  rather  see  any 
surplus  that's  generated  from  the  develop- 
ment of  our  resources  here  in  Ontario  go 
toward  making  this  province,  as:  well  as 
other  societies,  a  better  place  in  which  to 
live,  rather  than  contributing  to  racist  regimes 
and  exploitation  of  labour  in  South  Africa. 

iMr.  Speaker,  it  is  most  unlikely  that  the 
role  of  Falconbridge  Nickel  will  change, 
since  no  one  should  have  any  illusions  what- 
soever about  the  prime  role  of  multinational 
corporations.  Their  sole  purpose  is  to  maxi- 
mize profits  for  the  benefit  of  their  share- 
holders. By  locating  and  expanding  refining 
and  smelting  operations  in  countries  such  as 
Canada  and  Norway,  it's  merely  utilizing 
cheap  labour  elsewhere  to  acquire  raw 
material  from  the  underdeveloped  countries 
to  feed  those  refineries  and  smelters. 

(The  president  of  Falconbridge  Nickel 
Mines,  when  commenting  on  the  problems  of 
pollution  control  and  other  relatively  high 
production  costs  in  this  country,  has'  been 
quoted  as  saying: 

These  and  other  adverse  factors  will  in 
future  make  Canada's  nickel  sulphide  re- 
serves less  profitable  relative  to  the  lateritic 
ores.  Gradually  some  of  today's  nickel  re- 
serves in  Canada  will  be  written  off  as  un- 
profitable and  the  production  rates  of  in- 
dividual mines  will  then  decline. 

So  let  us  have  no  illusions  about  the  corpor- 
ations that  are  now  operating  in  our  resource 
industries.  When  it  suits  the  purpose  of 
Falconbridge  Nickel  Mines  to  concentrate  its 
activities  elsewhere,  it  will  do  just  that,  and 
we  in  Ontario  will  be  left  with  environmental 
scars,  depleted  resources  and  unemployment. 
The  Development  Education  Centre,  locat- 
ed here  in  Toronto,  has  done  some  excellent 
research  into  the  behaviour  of  corporations 
in  underdeveloped  countries.  Their  comments 
about  the  working  conditions  of  Falconbridge 
miners  in  Namibia  in  South- West  Africa  are 
worth  putting   on   the  record,   Mr.   Speaker. 


208 


ONTARIO  LEGISLATURE 


I    quote   from    the    Development   Education 

Centre  report: 

Workers  are  housed  in  cement  block 
houses,  15  to  a  dormitory. 

The  method  of  hiring  used  by  Falcon- 
bridge,  until  a  general  strike  in  December, 
1971,  was  the  South- West  Africa  Native 
Labour  Association.  This  organization  was 
composed  of  the  employers,  including 
Falconbridge,  who  traded  in  humans  in  a 
manner  described  by  the  International 
Commission  of  Jurists  as  "akin  to  slavery." 
Africans  labelled  as  A,  B  or  C  class 
physical  specimens  were  given  12-  to  18- 
month  contracts,  with  wages  of  about  $40 
per  month. 

That  is  about  one-third  of  the  poverty  datum 

line  requirement. 

Here  is  the  form  that  was  made  out  for 

them  when  they  went  to  work: 

The  said  master  agrees  to  hire  the  ser- 
vice of  the  said  servant  and  the  said  ser- 
vant agrees  to  render  the  said  master  his 
or  their  service  at  all  fair  and  reasonable 
times  in  the  capacity  of  [a  blank  space  for 
the  job]  for  [a  blank  space  for  the  period 
of  time],  commencing  on  [such  and  such  a 
date]. 

It  is  further  agreed  that  the  said  master 
shall  pay  the  said  servant  wages  at  the 
rate  shown  against  the  name  of  the  said 
servant  and  that  such  wages  shall  be  paid 
monthly. 

Identity  permits  are  mandatory,  and 
labels  were  tied  around  the  necks  of  the 
workers,  bearing  his  name,  his  prospective 
boss  and  the  latter's  address. 

Mr.  Martel:  Good  old  Falconbridge. 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  report  continues: 

Workers  were  often  forbidden  to  leave 
the  compound,  and  families  were  strictly 
barred  from  the  mine  area. 

Although  the  South-West  Africa  Native 
Labour  Association  was  broken  bv  the 
general  strike  in  1971.  most  of  its  charac- 
teristics still  remain.  Wages  for  an  African 
worker  range  from  $24  to  $63  per  month, 
and  Falconbridge  displays  no  intention  of 
cutting  into  its  profits  in  order  to  pay  $110 
a  month,  the  poverty  datum  line  minimum 
considered  necessary  to  maintain  health. 

Th^  behaviour  of  multinational  corporations 
resident  in  this  province  is  something  that 
we,  as  elected  people,  should  be  concerned 
about,  Mr.  Speaker,  because  we  are  guilty 
of   complicity   if  we   know   this   is   going   on 


and  continue  to  do  nothing  about  it  and  to 
regard  corporations  such  as  Falconbridge  as 
good  corporate  citizens  when  they  are  noth- 
ing of  the  kind. 

It  is  not  enough,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  say  that 
we  must  not  interfere  in  the  affairs  of  another 
country.  The  State  of  Namibia  was  supposed 
to  be  an  independent  state  since  1966  when 
the  United  Nations  terminated  South  Africa's 
mandate  over  that  territory.  This  was  con- 
firmed again  in  1971  by  the  International 
Court  of  Justice,  which  declared  South 
Africa's  presence  in  Namibia  to  be  illegal. 
South  Africa  has  ignored  this  declaration  and 
has  continued  to  occupy  Namibia.  The  role 
of  corporations  such  as  Falconbridge  should 
not  be  under-rated  in  the  exploitation  of 
these  people. 

Resources  are  being  explo